Skip to main content

Full text of "Studies in ceremonial : essays illustrative of English ceremonial"

See other formats 


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at http : //books . google . com/| 



y Google 



of tbe 

\aniver0it1? Of Mi0con0in 




yGoogle 



y Google 



y Google 



STUDIES IN CEREMONIAL. 



yGoogle 



y Google 



STUDIES 

IN 

CEREMONIAL 



ESSAYS ILLUSTRATIVE 

OF 

ENGLISH CEREMONIAL 



Bv THE Rev. VERNON STALEY, 

author of 

"Tub Cbrbmonial of thb English Church," btc. 




A. R. MOWBRAY & CO. 

Oxford : io6, S. Aldate's Street ; 

London : 64 & 65, Farringdon Street, E.C. 

(All rights ruervtd,) 

I90I. 



y Google 



yGooci^le 



224092 

^l&R 31 1919 



PREFACE. 



IN a former work, The Ceremonial of the English Churchy 
(A. R. Mowbray & Co., Oxford,) allusion is made, 
with disapproval, to certain ornaments and ceremonies 
which, within the last fifty years or so, seem to have 
been introduced without adequate authority into many 
English churches. These questionable things have un- 
fortunately come to be regarded in certain quarters with 
approval. On this account, I have felt it desirable to 
investigate fully, scientifically, and historically, the matters 
in question. The results of such investigation, which tend 
to confirm the disapproval expressed in my earlier work, 
are placed before the reader in the following pages. An 
exception to this line will be found in the articles entitled, 
** Bowing at the Name of Jesus," and "Bowing towards 
the Altar." These articles are included in the present 
work, because of the widespread neglect which prevails 
in regard to these particular practices, in the face of their 
authorization by the English Church. 

My thanks are due to Dr. J. Wickham Legg, and Mr. 
F. C. Eeles, for considerable help in preparing this work 
for the press. 

This volume is sent forth in the hope, that it may be 
of some service in promoting uniformity of ceremonial, 
based upon true English principles, and in accordance with 
the authority of the English Church in this matter. 



V. S. 



South Ascot, 
June I, 1901. 



y Google 



y Google 



LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO 
AND QUOTED. 



Addis and Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary^ Lond.9 

1893. 
Alfonsi Salmeronis Toletani e Soc. Jesu Theologi, 

Commcntarii, Coloniae Agrippinae, 1604. 
Alcuin, De Divinis Officiis, Bibl. Patr. Auct, 
Amalarius, De EccUsiasticis Officiis, in Hittorpios. 
Ancren RiwU, Camden Society, 1853. 
Andrewes, Works^ Library of Anglo-Catholic 

Theology, Oxford. 
Archaolo^iat Vols, xxvi., xli., xliii., 1., Hi., qaarto» 

Nichols and Sons. 
Aungier, History and Antiquities of Syon Monastery^ 

Lond., 1840. 

Barclay, A Persuasive to the People of Scotland . . .» 

and ed. Lond., 1723. 
Becon, The Displaying of the Popish Mass^ Works^ 

Vol. iii. Parker Society. 
Bede, De Temporum Ratione, Works, 12 Vols, Lond.» 

1843. 
Belethns, Rationale Divinorum Officiorumt folio» 

Migne, Patrologiae, torn. ceil. 
Bishop, Edmund, The Genius of the Roman Rite^ 

Weekly Register Office, 1899. 
Bisse, The Beauty of Holiness^ 7th ed. Lond., 1720. 
Bona, Rerum Liturgicarum^ Omnia Opera, folio» 

Antwerp, 1739. 
Bramhall, Works, Library of Anglo-Catholic Theo- 
logy, Oxford. 
Brand, Popular Antiquities, 3 Vols, Bohn, 18^9. 
Bridgett, History of the Holy Eucharist in Great 

Britain, 2 Vols, Lond., 1881. 



y Google 



viii List of Works re/erred to and quoted. 

Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaological Society* s 

Transactions^ Vol. xv. 
British Magazine, Vols, viii., xii., xix., xxxiii. 
Brun, Pierre Le, Explication de la Messe, 4 Vols, 

Liege, 1777. 
Buckinghamshire, Records of, Vol. viii. Aylesbury, 

1899. 
Burchardt, Ordo Missce, in Cochleus, Venice, 1572. 



Caremoniale Episcoporum, folio, Paris, 1633. 
Canons of the First Four Councils, Oxford, 1867. 
CardweU, Documentary Annals, 2 Vols, Oxford, 1844. 
„ History of Conferences. Oxford, 1840. 
„ Synodalia, t Vols, Oxford, 1842. 
Cartusiense, Ordinarium, Paris, 1582. 
Cartusiani, Missale, Fauratii in Sabaudia, folio, 1679. 
Cartularium EccUsice Sancti Nicholai Aberdonensis, 

New Spalding Club, Aberdeen, 1888. 

Catalani, Commentary on Sacrarum Ceeremoniarum 

sive RituumEcclesiasticorum Sanctce Romana 

Ecclesice,Lihritres,zY o\s, folio, Rome,i750. 

„ Commentary on Caremoniale Episcoporum, 

2 Vols, quarto, Paris, i860. 

Catholic Customs, A Guide for the Laity, Catholic 

Truth Society. 
Ceremoniale Parisiense, 1703. 
Challoner, The Garden of the Soul, Lond., 1798. 
Chambers, Divine Worship in England in the 13th and 

14th Centuries, Lond., 1877. 
Clutterbuck, A Plain and Rational Vindication and 

Explanation of the Liturgy of the Church of 

England . . ., 3rd ed. Lond., 1702. 
Cochleus, Speculum Missa, Venice, 1572. 
Collier, Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain, 2 Vols, 

folio, Lond., 1708. 
Cornelius a Lapide, Commentaria in Omnes Divi Pauli 

Epistolas, folio, Antwerp, 1665. 
Corsetti, Praxis Sacrorum Rituum ac Ceeremoniarum, 

Venice, 1739. 
Cosin, Works, Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, 

Oxford. 



y Google 



List of Works referred to and quoted, ix 

Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, Smith and 

Cheetham, 2 Vols, Lond., 1875. 
Dictionary of Christian Biography, Smith and Wace, 

4 Vols, Lond., 1877. 
Dictionary of National Biography, Leslie Stephens, 

1885. 
Dictionnaire des CMmonies, Boissonnet, 3 Vols, Paris, 

1847. 
Dominican, Caremoniale juxta Ritum S. Ordinis Pra- 

dicatorum, Mechlin, 1869. 
Ducange, Lexicon Manuale ad Scriptores Media et 

Infima Latinitatis, Migne, 1866. 
Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chrietien, 2nd ed. Paris, 

1898. 
Dugdale, History of St. PauVs Cathedral, folio, Lond., 

1658. 
Durandus, Gulielmus, Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, 

Lyons, per Jacobum Sacon, 1510. 
Durantus, J. S., De Ritibus Ecclesia Catholica, 

Coloniae Agrippinae, 1592. 

Eeles, Reservation of the Holy Eucharist in the Scottish 

Church, Aberdeen, 1889. 
Exposition de la Messe, ed. Frere, Alcuin Club 

Collections, ii. 

Falise, Ceremonial Romain, Paris, i86i. 

„ Sacrorum Rituum Elucidatio, 1863. 
First Prayer Book of Edward VL, British Museum. 
Frere, The Use of Sarum, I., Cambridge University 

Press, 1898. 
Fulke, Answers, Parker Society. 

Gardellini, Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum 

Rituum, 4 Vols, Rome, 1856. 
Gasquet and Bishop, Edward vi. and The Book of 

Common Prayer, Lond., 1890. 
Gibson, Codex Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani, 2nd ed. 

2 Vols, folio, Oxford, 1761. 
Grindal, Remains, Parker Society. 



y Google 



X List of Works referred to and quoted, 

HampsoB, Medii Mvi Kalendarium, 2 Vols, Lond. 

Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, folio, Dublin, 1719. 
„ EccUsia Restauraiat 2 Vols, Ecclesiastical 
History Society, 1849. 

Hierurgia Anglicana, Lond., 1848. 

Hittorpius, De Divinis Catholica EccUsice Officiis, folio» 
Paris, 1610. 

Honorius Augustodunensis, Gemma Anima, in Hittor- 
pius. 

Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, 7th ed. 3 vols, Oxford, 
1888. 

Hooper, Later Writings, Parker Society. 

Hospinianus, Historic Sacramentarice, folio, Geneva, 

Hugonis de Sancto Victore, Speculum de Mysteriis 
Ecclesia, in Hittorpius. 

Illustrations of the Topography and Antiquities of the 
shires of Aberdeen and Banff, Aberdeen, Spald- 
ing Club, 1842. 

Innocent iii., De Sacro Altaris Mysterio. 

Irish Ecclesiastical Record, August, 1892. 

Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. ii. No. 7, April, 
1901. 

Keble, Eucharistical Adoration, 3rd ed. Oxford, 

1867. 
Keeling, Liturgia Britannica, 2nd ed. London, 

1851. 

Labbe-Cossart, Concilia, 1729. 

Lathbury, History of Convocation, 2nd ed. Lond., 
1853. 
„ History of the Book of Common Prayer, 2nd 
ed. Oxford, 1859. 
Laud, Works, Library of Anglo- Catholic Theology, 

Oxford. 
Lay Folks Mass Book, Early English Text Society, 

1879. 
Legenda Aurea, 7 Vols, ed. Ellis, Dent, 1900. 
Lincoln's Case, The Bishop of, Roscoe, Lond., 1891. 



y Google 



List of Works referred to and quoted. xi 

Lincoln Cathedral, Statutes of, H. Bradshaw and Chr. 

Wordsworth, 3 Vols, Cambridge University 

Press. 
Lindewode, Provinciate seu Constitution's Anglice, 

folio, Oxford, 1679. 
Liturgica Sacra Catholica^ Carolos Kosma de Papi, 

Ratisbon, 1863. 
Lydgate, Virtue of the Mass, Harl. MS., 2251. 

Mabillon, Museum Italicum, 2 Vols, Paris, 1687. 
Mant, On the Book of Common Prayer, 2nd ed. 

Oxford, 1822. 

Marcellus, Christopher, Rituum Ecclesiasticorum sive 

Sacrarum Cerimoniarum. SS, Romana Ec- 

clesicB, Libri ires, foUo, Venice, 1516. 

„ Sacrarum Caremoniarum . . ., Venice, 1573. 

Mayer, Explicatio Caremoniarum Ecclesiasticarum, 

Tugii, 1737. 
Mediaval Ceremonial, The Church Quarterly Review, 

January, 1900, Vol. xlix. 
• Micklethwaite, The Ornaments of the Rubric, Alcnin 

Club Tracts, i. 1897. 
Micrologus, De Ecclesiasticis Observationibus, in 

Hittorpius. 
Missale Cartusiani, Fauratii in Sabaudia, folio, 1679. 
Missale ad usum Percelebris Ecclesia Herfordensis, 

ed. Henderson, 1874. 
Missa Gothica et Officii Muzarabici, Toleti, 1875. 
Missale i^owanMm, 1474, Henry Bradshaw Society, 1899. 
,, „ foHo, Juntas, Venice, 1580. 

„ „ folio, Pauli Balleonii, Venice, 1713. 

Missale Romano-Lugdunense, 1868. 
Missale ad usum Insignis et Prceclara Ecclesia Sarum, 

Burntisland, 1861-83. 
Missale ad usum Insignis Ecclesia Eboracensis, 2 Vols, 

Surtees Society, 1874. 
Moleon, De, Voyages Liturgiques, Paris, 1718. 
Month, The, May, 1896; October, 1897. 
Myrc, John, Instructions to Parish Priests, Early 

English Text Society, i868. 
Myroure of oure Ladye, Early English Text Society, 

1873. 



y Google 



xii List of Works referred to and quoted* 

Neal, Daniel, History of the Puritans^ 5 Vols, Lond., 

1822. 
Neale and Webb, Symbolism of Churches ... a 

translation of the ist book of Durandus* 

Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, Leeds, 1843. 
Nichols, J., Illustrations of the Manners and Expences 

of Antient Times in England, Lond., 1797. 
Nicholls, W., A Comment on the Book of Common 

Prayer, folio, 2nd ed. Oxford, 17 10. 

Ordinarium Cartusiense, Paris, 1582. 
Ordines Romani, in Mabillon*s Museum Italicum, Vol. 
ii. Paris, 1689. 

Paris de Crassus, De Caremoniis Cardinalium et Epis- 

coporum in eorum dicecesibus, Venice, 1582. 
Peacock, English Church Furniture, Lond., 1866. 
Pelliccia, The Polity of the Christian Church, trans. 

Bellett, Masters, 1883. 
Pilkington, Works, Parker Society. 
Polydore Vergil, De Inventoribus Rerum. 
Promptorium Parvulorum, Camden Society, 1843. 
Prynne, Canterbury's Doom, folio, Lond., 1646. 
Pugin, Glossary of Ecclesiastical Ornament, Lond., 

1868. 
Pontificale secundum ritum sacrosancta Romance Eccles- 

ice, Lyons, 1542. 

Quarti, Rubricee Missalis Romani, Commentariis illus- 
tratce, Venice, 1757. 

Rites of Durham, Surtees Society, 1842. 

Rock, The Church of our Fathers, 4 Vols, Dolman. 

Robertson, How shall we conform to the Liturgy? 

3rd ed. Murray, 1869. 
Royal Commission on Ritual, Second Report, Lond., 

1868. 
Rufinus, in De Fide et Symbolo, ed. Heurtley, Oxford, 

1884. 
Rupertus Tuitiensis, De Divinis Officiis, in Hittorpius. 



y Google 



List of Works referred to and quoted, xiii 

Scotland, The Code of Canons of the Episcopal Church 

in, Edin., 1844. 
Some Principles and Services of the Prayer Book, ed. J. 

W. Legg, Rivingtons, 1899. 
Scudamore, Notitia Eucharistica, 2nd ed. 1876. 
Shepherd, A critical and practical elucidation of the 

Book of Common Prayer, 4th ed. Lond., 1828. 
Strasbourg, Manuale seu Compendium Ritualis Argen- 

tinensis . . ., 2nd ed. Argentinse, 1780. 
Strype, Works, 24 Vols, Oxford, Clarendon Press. 

Tavemer, Postils on the Epistles and Gospels, ed. 

Cardwell, Oxford, 1841. 
Taylor, Jeremy, Works, 10 Vols, ed. Eden, Lond., 

1847. 
Transactions of St, Paul's Ecclesiological Soctety, 4 Vols, 

Alabaster, Passmore. Harrison and Sons. 

Vayasseur, Le, CMmonial selon le Rit Romain d*aprh 

Baldeschi, Paris, 1871. 
Visitation of Churches belonging to St. PauVs Cathedral, 

Camden Society, 1895. 

Walcott, History of the Parish Church of St, Margaret, 
Westminster, 1847. 
„ Sacred Archaology, Lond., 1868. 
Walker, Sufferings of the Clergy, foUo, Lond., 1714. 
Whitgift, Works, Parker Society. 
Wilkins, Concilia, 4 Vols, Lond., 1737. 
Wordsworth, Notes on Medieeval Services in England, 

Lond., 1898. 
Wren, Parentalia, folio, Lond., 1750. 

Zurich Letters, Parker Society. 



y Google 



y Google 



CONTENTS. 



!• PAGB 

Genuflections at the Consecration of the 
Eucharist i 

II. 
Signing with the Cross at the Creeds - • 27 

III. 
The Position of the Reader of the Liturgical 
Epistle 51 

IV. 
The Posture of the Hearers of the Liturgical 
Epistle 75 

V. 
Bowing at the Name of Jesus .... 99 

VL 
Bowing towards the Altar - . - .127 

VII. 
The Altar-Frontal 145 

VIIL 
The Altar-Lights 169 

IX. 
The Silken Chalice-Veil 195 

X. 
The Chalice-Pall 215 

XL 
The Biretta 227 



Digitized by 



Google 



y Google 



Genuflections at tbe Conaecratfon 
of tbe £ucbari6t. 



yGoogle 



Pre- Reformation English ceremonial not identical 
with that of the modern Roman Church, pp. 3, 4. 
Genuflection during the canon a case in point, p. 5 ; 
never authorised by any rubric of the English 
Church, pp. 5) 6 ; an accompaniment of the 
elevation of the Host, p. 6. The elevation 
forbidden in 15491 and not since authorised, p. 7. 
Genuflection in the Roman Church, p. 8; not 
ordered in the Roman missal before the year 1570, 
p. 9 ; and not even a medieval ceremony, p. 10. 
Evidence from the pre-Pian missals negative, pp. 
II, 12; Inclinations during the canon ordered, 
ibid., specially at Suppiices U rogamus^ and signifi- 
cation, pp. 13 — 15. Possible explanation of late 
date of direction to genuflect, pp. 15, 16. Extension 
of the practice in the Roman Church, pp. 16, 17. 
Testimony of English missals, pp. 17 — 19. Omission 
of directions in early English missals for external 
acts of adoration after consecration, pp. 19, 20. 
Conclusion, p. 21. Laity free to practise such 
gestures "as every man's devotion serveth,** ibid. 
Practice of the Oriental Church, pp. 21—23. In- 
clination during the canon a Catholic custom, 
p. 24. Note on the practice of the Carthusian 
monks, p. 25. 



y Google 



I. 

GENUFLECTIONS 

AT THE CONSECRATION OF THE 

EUCHARIST. 

IT has been sometimes assumed in late 
years, that the ceremonial usages of the 
modem Roman Church are practically identical 
with those which prevailed abroad and in 
England before the Reformation. And, as a 
consequence of this assumption, it has been 
held by some, that, in order to discover what 
were the ceremonial usages of the English 
Church up to the close of the second year 
of King Edward the Sixth, the simplest plan 
is to visit the continental churches, or the 
nearest Roman Catholic chapel at home, and 
see for oneself. It would be difficult, as we 
hope to show, to commit oneself to a greater 
blunder than that which is involved in the 
foregoing statements. In the first place, the 
assumption that the existing Roman customs 
are identical with those which prevailed at 
home and abroad up to the close of the middle 
ages (which, we may say, was the beginning 
of the Reformation age), is demonstrably false. 
It is an assumption, the acceptance of which, 
in regard to ceremonial, has led to most 



y Google 



4 Genuflections at the 

disastrous results in the English Church 
during the last half century. 

Father Herbert Thurston, writing in 
The Month, Oct. 1897, pages 394, flf., says — 
** Few Catholics would probably be able to 
distinguish between what is ancient and what 
is modem, in the actions which they see 
every day performed by the priest at the altar. 
Few probably are aware how recent, com- 
paratively speaking, are many of those rites 
which seem to them part of the very nature 
of things. . . . The observances which now 
prevail so uniformly throughout the Roman 
obedience were only introduced shortly before 
the Reformation ; and several of the external 
rites, which we regard as amongst the most 
appropriate of the ceremonies of the Mass, 
would probably have seemed strange and out- 
landish in the eyes of St. Dunstan, St. Thomas 
Aquinas, or even Blessed John Fisher." Here 
Father Thurston, whose learning and patient 
investigation compel a tribute of admiration, 
bears testimony to the fact, that it is the 
height of folly to assert that the modern 
ceremonial usages of the Roman Church are 
identical with those of the middle ages up 
to the eve of the Reformation. This being so, 
what can be said of the many usages which 
have been intruded upon the English Church 
in recent years, on the ground that the 
medieval and modern Roman customs are 
identical ? We read somewhere of the catas- 



y Google 



Consecration of the Eucharist. 5 

trophe which befell a house built upon a founda- 
tion of sand : the foundation was unequal to 
the superstructure, and the house fell to pieces. 
As an illustration of the danger of trusting 
to such a fallacious assumption as that referred 
to, let us examine the custom of genuflection 
during the Canon of the Eucharist. The 
practice of the celebrant genuflecting after the 
consecration of the elements has been widely 
introduced into our churches. It has, in fact, 
come to be regarded in certain quarters as a 
custom of the very first importance. To omit 
the genuflections, is regarded by certain people 
as implying disbelief in the Sacramental 
Presence, and is considered to be sufficient to 
render the ofiender liable to forfeit any claim 
to be regarded as a Catholic. Now, what are 
the facts of the case, as seen from an historical 
point of view ? They are as follows : 

I. 
As far as we have been able to ascertain, 
genuflection by the celebrant during the Canon 
has never been authorised by any rubric of the 
Liturgies of the Church in England, from the 
introduction of Christianity until the present 
time.' In other words, no Missal used in the 
English Church has yet been discovered, in 

^ *' No printed English Missal has any rubric directing 
genuflection at or 2fter the Consecration/' — Medugval 
Ceremonial^ The Church Quarterly Review, January, 1900, 
Vol. xlix. p. 410. 



y Google 



6 Genuflections at the 

which the celebrant is directed to genuflect 
during the Canon. We do not say that 
genuflection was not practised by individuals 
in the sixteenth century in England, but when 
it was so practised, it was in disregard of the 
rubrics of the Missals, which omitted to 
prescribe it, or which gave other directions. 
Thus, genuflection during the Canon in 
England has never been explicitly sanc- 
tioned : it remains unsanctioned to-day. The 
unauthorised genuflections introduced in some 
places during the sixteenth century were 
associated with the elevation of the Host. 
All the evidence goes to show that genuflection 
is one of those ceremonies which arose as a 
custom after, and consequent on, the introduc- 
tion of the elevation of the Host in the 
twelfth century in the West. Mr. Edmund 
Bishop, the learned Roman liturgiologist, says, 
"We do not realise at once how much of 
added and imposing ceremonial is involved 
in the addition, in the twelfth and thirteenth 
centuries, of the single act of the elevation of 
the Host and Chalice, with its accompanying 
lights and torches, censings, bell-ringings, and 
genuflections."* On Mr. Bishop's admission, 
the elevation radically changed the character of 
the Mass: it was no part of the original primi- 
tive Roman Service. It is to be observed that, 
even when the elevation was authorised in 
England, genuflections were not authorised 
« Tks G$nius of the Roman Rite^ pp. lo, ii. 



y Google 



Consecration of ike Eucharist. y 

by the rubrics of the Missals. Now, we 
know that the elevation of the Host was 
explicitly forbidden in the First Prayer 
Book of Edward VL, and that it has never 
since been restored in the English Church. 
Immediately after the consecration of the 
elements, the direction is given, ** These words 
before rehearsed are to be said, turning still to 
the altar, without any elevation, or showing 
the Sacrament to the people.*' In this short 
sentence, the compilers of the Prayer Book 
of 1549 cut at the very root of a most important 
ceremonial development which had taken 
place without the consent of the whole Church, 
which seemed to them to foster questionable 
doctrine, and which any national Church had 
every right to reject. No direction appears in 
the Prayer Book of 1552, for the simple reason 
that it would have been superfluous ; and we 
have no later record of the elevation or any 
of the consequent ceremonies having been 
practised until after the middle of the nine- 
teenth century. With the exclusion of the 
elevation, its accompanying ceremonies — 
censing the Host, ringing of bells, and genu- 
flections — ceased. The genuflections which 
were never authorised, and the ceremony 
which led to their introduction, alike dis- 
appeared. All this was, in fact, in regard 
to genuflections, as a slaying of the slain. 
Literally, " we have no such custom " in the 
EngUsh Church. 



y Google 



8 Genuflections at the 

II. 

Now let us pass on to consider the usage of 
the Roman Church in this matter. We will 
begin by again quoting Father Thurston. In 
the article before referred to (p. 396), he writes, 
** It is surely a striking fact that while the 
Holy Sacrifice has been offered for nineteen 
centuries, thirteen of those centuries should 
have passed away before the priest who offered 
it was ever seen to bend his knee to the ground 
in the gesture so familiar at our altars now. 
I do not advance this as in any sense a novel 
discovery. The fact is familiar to all who 
possess a moderate acquaintance with liturgical 
history." 

In Ordo Romanus xiv., said to have been 
-written by Cardinal James Cajetan, under Pope 
Clement VI., a.d. 1342-52, we find, **. . . teneat 
Hostiam cum digitis utriusque manus, et 
proferat distincte ac devote verba consecra- 
tionis; quibus dictis, ipse primo adoret in- 
•clinato capite sacrum divinum corpus ; deinde 
xeverenter et attente ipsum elevet in altum 
adorandum a populo . . . prosequatur verba 
•consecrationis usque ad ilium locum, remis- 
sionem pucatotum. Quibus finitis, inclinato 
paululum capite adoret sacrum Domini san- 
guinem, et elevet adorandum a populo. . . . 
Cum autem dicet. Surplices te rogamus^ etc., 
manibus cancellatis ante pectus . . . inclinet 
ante altare." < ** Let him hold the Host with 
•z MabiUon, Museum fta/uum, Vol. ii. pp. 304, 305, Paris. 1689. 



yGoo5^Ie 



Consecration of the Eucharist. g 

the fingers of each hand, and let him clearly 
and reverently pronounce the words of conse- 
cration ; when he has said these words let him 
first adore with head inclined the holy and 
divine body himself, and then let him reverently 
and carefully elevate it on high to be adored 
by the people ... let him continue the words 
of consecration as far as the place, remissionem 
peccatorum. This done, let him adore the holy 
blood of the Lord with head slightly inclined, 
and let him elevate it to be adored by the 
people. • . . And when he says, Supplices te 
rogamus, etc., with hands joined before his 
breast ... let him incline before the altar." 

The earliest printed Roman Missal known 
to us, namely that printed at Milan in 1474,' 
contains no directions for gestures of reverence 
at the consecration ; and it is not till we come 
to *Supplices te rogamus,* well beyond the 
consecration, that we find, Hie inclinet se. And 
the same remark applies to the Roman Missals 
of 1485, 1493, 1505, and 1509.* In point of 
fact, genuflection during the Canon was not 
ordered to be made by the rubrics of the 
Roman Missal, until the revision under Pius V. 
in 1570.3 This date, according to Archbishop 

z Missale Romanum^ I474> edited by Dr. Lippe, Henry 
Bradshaw Soc 

* It is right to say, that the absence of directions in the 
printed missals to show reverence to the Consecrated 
Elements cannot be held to prove that such was not done 
in practice, even though not authorised. 

3 *' It is not an easy matter to find a pre-Pian edition of 
the Roman Missal, even with the resources of the British 



y Google 



lo Genuflections at the 

Trench's liberal computation, is half a century 
and more later than the close of the middle 
ages. Thus, even according to Roman author- 
ity (and it is of authorised ceremonial we are 
speaking), genuflection at Mass is not, strictly 
speaking, a medieval ceremony. What then 
becomes of the assumption that the cere- 
monial of the modern and medieval Roman 
Church is identical ? And what then becomes 
of the superstructure which certain Anglicans 
during the last fifty or sixty years have 
built on such a fallacy ? But, to go back. 
Quoting Father Thurston again, we read 
(p. 397), " With regard to this particular point 
of the genuflections to the Blessed Sacra- 
Museum at our disposal, that directs the celebrant to 
genuflect at or after the moment of consecration. Some 
of the Roman Missals printed at Paris before 1570, direct 
the priest to adore cum mediocri inclinatione, but not 
more." — Mediaval Ceremonial^ Ch, Quar. Rev., xlix. 410. 

John Burchardt, in his Ordo Missa^ printed at Rome 
in 1502 (which was incorporated in the rubrics of the 
Roman Missal of 1570), distinctly orders genuflection 
at the consecration. After the consecration of the Host, 
we read, ^^ genuflexus earn adorat^* i after that of the 
Chalice, ** et genu/iexus sanguinem reverenier adorat,^^ — 
Ordo Missse, pp. 213b, 214a, in Cochleus, Speculum 
Miisa^ Venetiis, 1572. Also Pontificale secundum ritum 
sacrosancte Romane Ecclesie, Lugduni, 1542, fol. ccxxvii.,. 
has, "Tum Pontifex benedicit ct verba consecrationis 
distincte et reverenter profert, mox ipse genuflexus conse- 
cratam hostiam devote adorat." 

As late as the year 1531, Bishop Gavin Dunbar forbade 
genuflection at Aberdeen on passmg the reserved Sacra- 
ment — "humiliter se inclinent, non genua flectentes, sed 
caput et corpus." See Eeles, Reservation of the Holy- 
Eucharist in the Scottish Churchy p. 35. Mowbray» 
1900. 



y Google 



Consecration of the Eucharist. ii 

ment, the testimony of our manuscript Missals 
is negative, but very significant. In his 
Quillen und Forsckungen zur Gesckickii des Missals 
Romanum, Dr. Ebner has paid particular atten- 
tion to the rubrics found in the Canon of the 
very large number of Missals examined by him 
in Italian libraries. There is not apparently 
a single instance, certainly not among those 
of earlier date, in which a genuflection is pre- 
scribed for the celebrant at or after the 
consecration." Father Thurston then goes 
on to give, as a specimen of the sort of rubrics 
found annexed to the Canon in manuscripts 
most rich in rubrics, the directions contained 
in a Franciscan Missal, written at the beginning 
of the fourteenth century (Vatican, Regina, 
2048). The rubrics quoted are those which 
follow the prayer, Hanc igitur. They are as 
follows : 

Hie accipiem hostiam reverenter tenet eamjnnctis manibus 
dicendo : Qui pridie, et ieneai ipsam usque : Simili. 

Qui pridie. . . . hoc est enim corpus meum. 

H$c deponat hostiam et levet calicem dicens : Simili modo 
. . . gratias agens. 

Hie deponat calicem in aliare tenens eum sinistra manu, 
dextra benedicat ; benedictione facta elevet et teneat eum 
usque : Unde et memores. 

Bene »(• dixit . . . mei memoriam facietis. 

Hie reponat calicem, 

Unde et memores, &c [with crosses] . . . immaculatam 
hostiam. 

Hie inclinet se sacerdos et dicat : Supplices, &c. 

From these rubrics, printed in italics, which 
are much fuller than those in most manuscript 



y Google 



12 Genuflections at the 

Missals, it will be seen that no mention what- 
ever of genuflection is made, nor even any act 
of external adoration to the Host after conse- 
cration. On the other hand, any genuflection 
after the consecration of the Chalice seems to 
be practically inconsistent with the clear 
direction to hold the chalice in the hand, until 
the words, Unde et memores. 

The following are the rubrics in the Constanz 
Missal of 1579 : — 

Inclina te, Hanc igitur . . . electorum tuorum jubeas 
Eleva ti, grege numerari . . . ut nobis Cor i^^ pus et 
San*|4guis Leva brtuhia et manus in ahum fiat dilectissimi 
filii tui Dai nostri Jesu Christ!. 

Accipe cum reverentia hostiam tersis ad corporale digitis. 

Qui pridie . . . 

Hie extende brachia in modum cruets. Unde et memores 

Inclina te cancellatis manibus, Supplices te rogamus 

No more rubrics as to posture are found till after Agnus 
Dei (which immediately follows Haec commixtio) then : — 

Inclina te ad altare^ et die. Domine Jesu Christi qui 
dixisti . . . 

Then Pcuc Christi . . . and Habere vinculum . . . 
then :— 

Inclinans die hanc orationem^ antequam communiees, 
Domine Jesu Christe fill Dei vivi . . . 

No more directions for gestures are given. 

The 1503 missal agrees with all this. 

In the Charterhouse Missal of 1679,' before 

the Canon stands the rubric, 

Saeerdos profunde incUnatus ante aitare junctis manibus 
dicit. 

Te igitur . . . 

' Missale Ceu^usumi, Fauratii in Sabaudia . . . 1679. 



y Google 



Consecration of the Eucharist. 13 

During the Commentoratio pro VhnSt after the words* 
omnium drcumstantium, there occurs in the margin, Hie 
rtverenter indinat* 

During the Infra Canomm^ at the words, Mariae Gene- 
trids Dei, there is in the margin, Hie rtverenter inciinai. 

In the Charterhouse Missal, there is no 
gesture of reverence or adoration ordered at 
the consecration; and nothing of the sort 
occurs till the Supplices te rogamus, where 
Inclinatus ante altar e^ cancellat manus, is found. 

It is certainly very remarkable that the 
inclination at * Supplices te rogamus ' ' is 
ordered in all the Liturgies, and that the old 
ritualists speak of it before this prayer, which 
was always looked upon as full of mystery. 
Upon its signification, Amalarius says, 
" Nempe Christ us oravit in cruce, incipiens 
a Psalmo, Deus Deus mcusy usque ad versum, in 
manus tuas commcndo spiritum meum. Postea 
inclinato capite, emisit spiritum. Sacerdos 
inclinat se, et hoc quod vice Christi im- 
molatum est, Deo Patri commendat.'** •*For 
Christ prayed on the cross, beginning with the 
psalm, My God, My God, as far as the verse, 
into Thy hands I commend my spirit. Afterwards 
he bowed his head and gave up the ghost. 
The priest bows himself, and this because the 

X It is referred to in Orda Romanus ii., **Et sacerdos, 
quando dicit, Supplices te rogamus, humiliato capite, inclinat 
se ante aitare : " also in Ordo. Romanus iv., " Hie inclinat se 
juxta aitare, dicens, Supplices te rogamus^ — Mabillon, 
Museum Italicum^ Vol. ii. pp. 48, 61. Paris, 1689. 

' Lib iii. cap. xxv. (col. 425, in Hittorpius, De divinis 
Catholicce Ecclesia officiis, Paris, 1 6 10). 



y Google 



14 Genuflections at the 

sacrifice is ofifered instead of Christ. He 
commends it to God the Father." Similarly 
Micrologus says, *' Male enim cauti sumus, si 
Christum imitari summopere non studemus. 
. . . Presbyter et humiliationem Domini us- 
que ad crucem, ut praediximus nobis indicat : 
cum se usque ad altare inclinat, dicendo: 
Hanc ergo ohlationem. Statim enim in sequenti- 
bus narrationem de Dominica Passione orditur, 
cujus typus usque ad, Suppliccs te rogamus, 
observatur. Ibi videlicet sacerdos se juxta 
altare inclinans, Christum in cruce inclinato 
capite spiritum tradidesse significat." * ** We 
are careful to no purpose if we are not zealous 
to imitate Christ in everything that we can. 
... As we said before, the priest represents 
to us the humiliation of our Lord even unto 
the cross, when he bows himself to the altar 
saying, Hanc ergo ohlationem. For in the follow- 
ing [words] he at once begins the story of the 
Lord's passion, the figure of which is adhered 
to as far as, Supplices te rogamus. There indeed 
the priest, inclining himself close before the 
altar indicates that Christ, having bowed his 
head, gave up the ghost." Honorius of Autun 
says, "Sacerdos Christi mortem representat. 
Cum se (ad Supplices te rogamus, inclinat) et 
post ejus mortem apte commemoratio defunct- 
orum agitur, qui pro eis mortuus creditur."' 

X De EccUsiastias ObservatiombuSt cap. i6, in Hittorpius, 
coll. 740, 741. Paris, i6ia 
" Gemma Anima^ in Hittorpius, col. i 196. 



y Google 



Consecration of thi Eucharist. 15 

<*The priest represents the death of Christ 
when he inclines at Supplices i$ rogamus^ and 
the commemoration of the dead is very fittingly 
made after the death of him whom we believe 
to have died for them." 

It is most significant that the inclination at 
Supplices U rogatnus, is the only gesture of 
reverence ordered in the Canon of the Roman 
Missals of 1474, 1485, 1493, 1505, 1509, as we 
have already observed. 

In the Mozarabic Missal,' at the beginning 
of the Canon stands the rubric, Deinde dicat 
sacerdos in siUntio^ junctis manibus, inclinando se 
ante altare : after the words, et gratias agens, is 
found, inclinet se. No gesture of reverence or 
act of adoration is prescribed after the conse- 
cration. This is all the more remarkable, 
since we find Hie gmufUctitur at the Incarnatus 
in the Creed, which in the Gothic rite follows 
the elevation. 

The comparatively late date when directions 
to genuflect first appear in the Roman Missal 
is possibly to be explained from reverence for 
the primitive tradition, which forbade kneeling 
on the Lord's day and during Eastertide. 
This tradition which, as will be seen later, 
was emphasized at the Council of Nicsea, can 
be traced back to the second century. It was 
well established in the time of Tertullian, who 
{d$ Corona^ c. iii.) says, ** Christians consider it 
unlawful to pray to God on their knees on the 

' Missa Gothica et Officii Muzarabici, Toleti, 1S75. 



y Google 



1 6 Genuflections at the 

Lord's days." Kneeling was, in the early 
days of Christianity held to signify penitence ; * 
and both penitence and fasting were held to 
be inconsistent with the thanksgiving and joy, 
with which the commemoration of the Resur- 
rection was associated. Neither penitence 
nor fasting were permitted on the Lord's day, 
or during the great forty days following Easter 
day.* 

It is most significant to observe, that the 
directions for the celebrant to genuflect at the 
consecration, first appeared in the Roman 
Missal of 1570, that is, within six years of the 
close of the Council of Trent, at which the 
Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation was 
formulated. This Missal is, in fact, the 
authoritative Missal of the Council of Trent, 
which appeared under the auspices of pope 
Pius V. in the year 1570. 

It is full of suggestion to notice how, latterly, 
the practice of genuflection has been extended, 
in the Roman Church, from the Eucharist to 
the crucifix on the high altar. Amongst the 
answers to correspondents in The Irish Ecclss- 
iastical Record of August 1892, the following 
words occur, <*It seems not to be generally 
known that the faithful, entering a church at 
any time, should genuflect to the cross on the 
high altar, even though the Blessed Sacra- 

X <' The bending of the knees is as a token of penitence 
and sorrow." — Cassian. Coll. xxi. c. xx. p. 795. 
" See Th$ Fasting Days^ Stalcy, pp. 32, 33, note. 



y Google 



Consecration of the Eucharist. 17 

ment is not preserved in the tabernacle. The 
celebrant, going to the altar to say Mass, or 
returning from saying Mass, prelates and the 
canons of the cathedral church are alone 
excepted from this rule. * So that/ to translate 
the words of De Herdt (torn 1. n. 119), «all, 
except canons of the cathedral church, and 
the others above mentioned, ought to genuflect 
before the cross of the high altar, even 
outside Mass.'" What will be the next 
development, in the matter of reverences, in 
the Roman Church, we know not. 

III. 
When we pass from the Roman Missals to 
the earliest known manuscript of the Sarum 
Missal (written about the year 1290), we find 
the same remarkable absence, not only of 
genuflections, but also of inclinations, after the 
consecration. The following are the rubrical 
directions surrounding the consecration. The 
rubrics quoted are those which follow the 
prayer, Hanc igitur. 

After Quam oblacionem, and immediately before Qui 
priclie, is : — 

Hie eltuet hostiam contra pectus : dicefido^ 
Qui pridie . . . 

. . . gracias agens. benei^dixit hicfcuicU signum frcutionis 
dicendoy fregit corpus meum. 

Hie eUvit alcius corpus ut videcUur ab omnibus^ et postea 
humiliter reposito : teneat calictm inter manus et parumper 
elevet dicens, 

Simili modo ex eo omnes. Hie elevet 

calicem contra pectus: dicendo^ Hie est enim calix 
.... memoriam facietis. 



y Google 



z8 Genuflections at the 

Calice humiliter reposito^ et cooperto^ extendat manus in 
modum cruets dicendo^ 

Unde et memores .... inmaculatam hostiam. 
Hie caneeilatis manibus et corpore inelinato, dieaty 

Supplices te ut quotquot, hie erigat se et oseuktur 

altare dieens^ ex hac altaris 

hie pereueiai pectus suutn, dicens. 
Nobis quoque .... 

In the earliest printed edition of the Sarum 
Missal of the year 1492,' we find, as already 
observed, the same features : 

Hie erigat sacerdos manus et conjungcU ; et postea tergat 
digitosy et elevet hostiam^ dicens^ Qui pridie . . . . et, 
elevatis ocuiis in coelum, Hie elevet oculos suos, ad te Deum 
Patrem suum omnipotentem, Hie inclinet se, et postea elevet 
paululum, dicens, tibi gratias agens, bene'l^dixit, fregit. 
Hie tangat hostiam^ dicens, deditque discipuiis suis, dicens, 
Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes, hoc est enim 

CORPUS MEUM. 

Et debent ista verba proferri cum uno spiritu et sub una 
prolatione, nulla pausatione inlerposita. Post hac verba 
elevet earn supra frontem, ut possit a populo videri : et 
reverenter illam reponeU ante calicem in modum crucis per 
eandem facta, Et tune discooperiat calicem et teneat inter 
manus suas, non disjungendo pollicem ab indice nisi dutn 
facit benedictiones tantum^ ita dicens, 

Simili modo posteaquam coenatum est, accipiens . . • 
tibi. Hie inclinet se, dicens, gratias agens, benei^dixit, 
deditque discipuiis suis, dicens, Accipite et bibite ex eo 
omnes. Hie elevet scuerdos parumper calicem . . . ita 

dicens, HIC EST BNIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI . . . PECCA- 
TORUM. 

Hie elevet calicem, dicens, HiGC ... IN MEI memoriam 

FACIETIS. 

Hie reponat calicem et elevet brachia sua in modum 
cruets, junctis digitis, usque cut hac verba, de tuis donis ac 
datis. 

Unde et memores. 

z Misscde cut usum Insignis et Praelara Ecclesia Sarum, 
Bumtbland, 186 1. 



y Google 



Consecration of the Eucharist. 19 

From an examination of the foregoing rubrics 
of the Sanim Missal, printed here in italics, it 
will be seen that the priest is directed to incline 
before the consecration of both the bread and 
the cup ; and that there is no direction for any 
act of adoration after the consecration of either 
one or the other. The same remark applies 
equally to certain editions of the York Missal.' 
The Hereford Missal of 1502' has inclinet se 
before the consecration of the bread only. 
This apparently deliberate omission of direc- 
tions for external acts of adoration after 
consecration, which is common to the earlier 
English Missals, is certainly very remarkable : 
it suggests a doctrinal question which we will 
not attempt either to state or to answer here. 
In the case of the Sarum Missal of 1492, 
quoted above, the omission is more notice- 
able, since, immediately preceding the prayer 
Hanc igiturf which commences the more solemn 
portion of the Canon, occur these words, Hie 
rcspiciat sacerdos hostiam cum magna veneratione^ 
dicenSf Hanc igitur. . . . The York Missal has a 
similar direction, namely. Hie respiciat hostiam 
cumveneratione,dicens, Hsinc igitur. . . . It seems 
impossible to interpret the inclinations made 
before and during the act of consecration, as 
distinguished from those made after that act, 

2 See Missa/e ad usum Insignis EccUsia Eboracettsts, 
Surtees Soc., 1874. 

' Missale ad usum PerceUbris Ecciesia Herjordensis^ 
Henderson, 1874. 



y Google 



20 Genuflections at the 

as identical in meaning with the genuflections 
prescribed immediately after consecration in 
the modern Roman Missal.' The former seem 
to imply the priest's reverence during the 
solemn action of consecration : the latter are 
precise and definite acts of adoration of the 
Consecrated Elements, as stated in the rubric. 
In connection with what has been said 
above, it is interesting to know, that at Lincoln 
Cathedral in the year 1236, the canons remained 
standing during the elevation, and only bowed 
their heads towards the altar. A similar 
custom obtained in many of the French 
dioceses down to comparatively recent times. 
The authority for the custom at Lincoln is 
found in Statutes of Lincoln Cathedral, H. Brad- 
shaw and Chr. Wordsworth, Vol. ii. p. 152, 
§§ 26, 30. *< Ad missam eciam sedetur post 
Sanctus usque ad aliud Per omnia : dum tamen 
erigant se in elevacione hostiei et ad altare se 
reverenter inclinent." "At mass also they sit 
from after the Sanctus till the other Per omnia : 
at the same time however, they should raise 
themselves at the elevation of the host, and 
reverently incline to[wards] the altar." The 
inclination here ordered is, it will be observed, 
*« ad altare." 

X ** Prolatis verbis consecrationis, statim Hostiam con- 
secratam genuflexus adorat. . . . Prolatis verbis consecra- 
tionis, deponit Calicem super corporate . . . genuflexus 
adorat." — Missa/e JRomanum, Venetiis, 17 13. These direc- 
tions first appeared in the Roman Missal of Pius V.> 
A.D. 1570. See footnote p. 10, of this article. 



y Google 



Consecration of the Eucharist. 21 

The only possible conclusion to be drawn 
from the facts stated above is, that, for the 
clergy in England, genuflection at the Eucharist 
is now, as it ever has been, unauthorised. 
We believe that we are right in saying, that, 
in the Oriental Liturgies, the priests in cele- 
brating the Eucharist never bend the knee to 
the Consecrated Elements. Taking all these 
facts into consideration, genuflection during 
the recitation of the Canon cannot lay claim to 
be regarded as a Catholic custom. 

It is to be understood that the foregoing 
remarks apply only to the clergy, who minister 
at the altar, not in a private but in an official 
capacity ; and whose gestures are controlled 
by authority. The laity are not so bound, and 
we have no desire to attempt to regulate what 
they should do in the matter under discussion. 
Indeed, for the laity, there cannot be a better 
principle than that laid down in the rubric 
of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. : " As 
touching kneeling, crossing, holding up of 
hands, knocking upon the breast, and other 
gestures, they may be used or left, as every 
man's devotion serveth, without blame." 

It is interesting to observe, that the custom 
of genuflecting on the part of the faithful on 
approaching the altar for communion, and on 
leaving it after reception, is not required in 
the Roman Church. In a manual recently 
published under the auspices of the so-called 
Catholic Truth Society, we read, " It does not 



yGoOg 



i 



22 Genuflections at the 

seem to be necessary to kneel to the Blessed 
Sacrament before kneeling down at the rail. 
... It is not necessary to kneel to the Blessed 
Sacrament as you leave the rails.*' * 

IV. 
This essay would hardly be complete without 
some further allusion to the practice of the 
Oriental Church. We have said above, that 
genuflection is unknown during the recitation 
of the Canon. It sheds some light upon the 
subject of our enquiry to know, that, on a 
certain occasion, a priest of the Russian 
Church was asked how he reserved the 
Eucharist for the sick and dying ; whereupon 
he took the enquirer to the place where the 
Eucharist was reserved, removed the pyx, and, 
without any sign of worship, opened it and 
showed the Consecrated Species. All this, 
gravely and reverently, but no gesture of 
adoration was made.« The withholding of 
sanction to genuflection during the Eucharist 
in the East is deliberate. It has its grounds 
in the 20th Canon of the Council of Nicaea, 
which is still remembered and acted upon in 
the present day in the Oriental Church. This 
Canon runs thus : *' Because there are some 
who kneel on the Lord's day, and even in the 

' Catholic Customs^ A Guide for the Laity in England, 
pp. 22, 24. 

• I am indebted for the account of this incident to Th€ 
Church Union Gazette^ May 2, 1892, p. 180. — v. s. 



y Google 



Consecration of the Eucharist. 23 

days of Pentecost," i.e. the 50 days after 
Easter day; ''that all things may be 
uniformly performed in every parish, it seems 
good to the holy Synod, that prayers be made 
to God standing/'' In early times kneeling 
was regarded as a penitential attitude, and 
thus an unfitting posture to be adopted during 
the Liturgy on Sundays, and the fifty days 
following Easter day, when the Church com- 
memorates the Resurrection. Moreover, the 
Eucharist being regarded as the commemora- 
tion of the whole economy of the Incarnate 
Life of our Lord, of which the Resurrection 
was the glorious climax, kneeling or genu- 
flection, as the attitude of humiliation, was 
naturally considered to be altogether inappro- 
priate at that Service. This idea is admirably 
carried out, as far as the celebrant is concerned, 
in the Communion Service of The Book of 
Common Prayer, in which he is directed to kneel 
at two moments only — the Confession and the 
Prayer of Humble Access, both, be it observed, 
prayers of penitence and humility. At all 
other times during the Service he stands. The 
Easterns express their reverence for the Con- 
secrated Elements by profound inclinations, 
which, as we have seen, were at other moments 
the authorised rule throughout the whole 
Western Church, until the revision of the 
rubrics of the Roman Missal in 1570. This 

I Cations of the First Four Councils^ Oxford, Parker, 
1867, p. 21. 



y Google 



24 Genuflections at the 

revision took place, it will be remembered, 
speaking generally, after the separation of 
England from Rome — that is to say, after the 
£rst stages of the English Reformation were 
accomplished. It will thus be seen how perfect 
was the agreement of the whole Catholic Church 
in this matter up to the closing years of the 
sixteenth century* Up to that period inclina- 
tion at the Eucharist had every claim to be 
considered, relatively speaking, a Catholic 
-custom: it was an universal practice. 

We think enough has been said to show 
that, whilst nothing is to be said from an 
historical point of view, in support of the 
modern Roman custom of genuflecting during 
the Canon of the Book of Common Prayer, a 
good deal is to be said in favour of the old 
English custom of showing reverence by 
inclining, at least as far as the clergy are 
concerned. 



y Google 



Consecration of the Eucharist. 25 

Note. — The witness of the Carthusian Order against the 
practice of genuflection during the Canon is exceedingly 
strong and persistent. The Carthusians are the most con- 
servative of all the Western religious orders, and they alone 
in the Western Church have preserved the primitive tradi- 
tion of the priest not kneeling on Sundajrs at the Eucharist. 
At the present day, and for more than three centuries past, 
the celebrant in the Carthusian Mass, after the consecration 
of the Host, bows profoundly with bended knee, but not to 
the ground, "ffoc est enim corpus meum, . . . Quibus 
prolatis, sacerdos . . . profiinde inclinatus, et genuflexus, 
non tamen usque ad terram, eam adorat** (Ordmarium 
Carfusiinsi, cap. xxvii. § 5. Parisiis, 1582. p. 84 3.) 
Even here we see that, whilst endeavouring to abide by 
the primitive tradition, the Carthusians have yielded in 
some measure to the pressure of example, if nothing more. 
In the Ordinarium Cartusiense^ cap. xxvi. § 18, p. 80a., we 
find the following comment on the reverence made by the 
assistants at the Incamaius in the Creed : '* Dum dicitur, 
Et homo foetus est^ ante medium altaris reverenter inclinat, 
et antequam se erigat osculatur altare ; non tamen genua 
flectit. Nunquam enim ipse sacerdos, quandiu stat ad altare 
sacerdotalibus vestibus indutus, genua flectit, aut veniam 
pro defectibus capit ; sed quando venise devotionis sunt 
sumendse, incurvatus tantum corpore, altare osculatur. " "At 
the words, Et homo foetus est, tne celebrant bows reverently 
before the middle of the altar, and before he raises himself 
he kisses the altar ; but he does not bend the knee. For 
the priest himself, as long as he is standing at the altar 
clad in his sacerdotal vestments, never genuflects or 
prostrates himself for his defects ; but when any reverence 
of devotion is to be made, he only bends his body and 
kisses the altar." Upon this matter Father Thurston thus 
speaks ( The Months Oct. 1897, p. 400), " It is commonly 
understood that the Carthusian priest does not in any 
proper sense genuflect while saying Mass [nunquam in 
jgenua procumbit), . . . There can be no reasonable doubt 
that, even if in the slight bending of the knees now 
practised in the Carthusian churdies, they may have 
yielded something to the changing ritual of the rest of 
the world, their custom of not bowing the knee to the 
ground during Mass is a survival of what in former times 
was the universal usage." 



y Google 



y Google 



Signind wttb tbe Ctoss 
at tbe Cree^0. 



yGoogle 



Example of the origin of certain new rubrical direc- 
tions, pp. 29, 30. Signing with the cross at the creeds 
possesses but slight authority, p. 31. Signing at 
the Apostles* Creed unauthorised in the West, p. 32. 
Possible origin of the custom, p. 33. Signing at the 
Nicene Creed in the Roman Church not very 
ancient, pp. 33, 34. Testimony of Belethus, and 
Durandus, pp. 34 — 36. Signing at the Nicene 
Creed apparently an extension of the signings at 
the Gospel and Gloria in excelsis, p. 37. Alternative 
explanation of the origin of the signing at the 
Apostles* Creed, pp. 37 — 39. Le Brun*s reference 
of Rufinus, pp. 40, 41 n. No directions in the 
English missals for any signing at the Nicene 
Creed, p. 41 ; the only English authority for the 
gesture that at Lincoln, p. 42. No English authority 
for signing at the Apostles* Creed, p. 42. The 
liturgical moments when the public signings at mass 
in England were authorised, pp. 43 — ^46. Conclusion, 
p. 47. Note I., on the explanation of the symbolic 
meaning of the sign of the cross, p. 47. NoU 2., on 
the importance of the signing at the liturgical 
Gospel, pp. 48, 49. 



y Google 



II. 

SIGNING WITH THE CROSS 
AT THE CREEDS. 

THE new incumbent of a certain church 
on the West coast of Scotland turned 
to the East to recite the Apostles' Creed, and 
signed himself with the cross at its conclusion. 
His back being towards the congregation, 
certain school-children standing in a row in 
the front, not fully understanding what their 
pastor did, must needs of course copy him : 
so they all took to scratching carefully their 
heads at the end of the Creed! The story 
does not go on to say, as it ought to do, 
whether or no the clergyman was questioned 
concerning his authority for the new gesture. 
Had he been asked to give his authority for the 
custom, he would probably have had no little 
difficulty in satisfying his questioners. Had 
his questioners been men of liturgical know- 
ledge, we venture to think that he would not 
have been able to give any authority whatever 
for signing himself at the close of the Apostles' 
Creed. And this we will proceed to show. 

An eminent Roman Catholic liturgical 
scholar has recently given us, as an example 
of the genesis of new rubrical directions in 
the Mass, the following account. Pope Leo 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



30 Signing with the Cross 

XIII. has ordered certain prayers to be said at 
the end of Low Mass, amongst which is the 
anthem Salve Regina. In celebrating, the former 
has noticed that the server, in answering this 
anthem, at the last line, <* O clement, O pious, 
O sweet Virgin Mary," emphasises these 
words by smiting his breast, sometimes put- 
ting out of his hands biretta and cruets, in 
order to a more thorough performance of the 
ceremony — O clement (thump), O pious (thump), 
O sweet Virgin Mary (heavier thump). The 
writer whom we are quoting is considerably 
perplexed to give a reasonable account of this 
new development of smiting the breast. He 
can only come to the conclusion, to use his 
own words, " that the youthful mind, forming 
a hasty induction from the Mea culpa, the Agnus 
Deif and the Domine, non sum dignus^ has come 
to the conclusion that omnia trina^ all things in 
threes, require to be emphasised when oppor- 
tunity arises, by a banging of gongs, or at 
least by a symbolical punching of the chest ; 
so after applying the lesson to the Sanctus^ 
sanctus, sanctus, of the Preface, he has proceeded 
to extend it further to the epithets in the last 
line of the Salve Regina" » 

I. 
We have here a good statement of the 
method whereby a large number of persons, 

X Thurston, Genuflexion at Afass^ The Month, October, 
1897, pp. 39i> 392. 



y Google 



at the Creeds. 31 

both clerical and lay, have adopted the custom 
of signing themselves with the sign of the cross 
at the conclusion of the Apostles* Creed. It is 
impossible to be ignorant, that the practice in 
question is very widespread in the English 
Church. It is, in fact, a gesture which has 
come to be regarded as the mark of " a good 
Catholic." And yet it is quite perplexing to 
be told, that it possesses no more rubrical 
authority, than the three strokes upon the 
breast, alluded to above, can boast of. In 
fact, it appears to have been introduced by a 
method of reasoning curiously like that adopted 
by the youthful servers, at whose hands 
Father Thurston suffered so considerably, 
and whom he so gently rebukes in commenting 
on the new ceremonial development during the 
saying of the Salve Regina, This may appear 
almost rude to those who have taken to signing 
themselves at the Apostles' Creed: but it is 
difficult to avoid the force of facts. 

In the article '*Sign of the Cross," in 
Smith's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities ^^ Mr. 
F. E. Warren gives a careful and detailed 
account of the various occasions on which the 
sign of the cross has been used in the Church 
from the earliest times. There is no mention 
of its use in connection with the recitation of 
the Creeds.' As far as the writer knows, there 

* Vol. ii. pp. 1895, ff« 

* In a letter to the author dated, January 28, 1901, Mr. 
Warren says, "I cannot recall any (Erection, Roman or Old 
English, for the cross at the end of the Apostles' Creed." 



y Google 



32 Signing with the Cross 

is positively no evidence whatever to be gained 
from the Service books of East or West, for 
the signing at the conclusion of the Apostles' 
Creed. This negative evidence is most re- 
markable, when we consider, as everyone 
possessing a very moderate acquaintance with 
the rubrics of the old Service books knows, 
the numerous occasions on which the sign of 
the cross is ordered to be made. The sign 
of the cross is not made now amongst Roman 
Catholics at the Apostles* Creed. Corset ti, in 
his Praxis Sacrorum RHuutn^^ mentions the 
signings at the choir offices, but says nothing 
about any signing at the Apostles* Creed. 
Falise, a t3rpical modern Roman rubricist, in 
his Sacrorum Rituum Elucidation^ gives a list of 
all crossings to be made in choir, amongst them 
that at the end of the Nicene Creed, but no 
mention is made of any signing at the con* 
elusion of the Apostles* Creed. The present 
writer, after investigation, has been unable to 
discover any rubrical direction, English or 
foreign, for the sign of the cross at the 
Apostles' Creed .3 And yet, strange to say, this 

' Venice, 1739, pp. 121, 127, 129. ' 1863, p. 126. 

3 The only trace, and it is very faint indeed, of any use 
of the sign of the cross in connection with the Ai)ostles' 
Creed, in England, so far discovered, is that found in text 
E. page 21, line 219, of The Lay Folks Mass Book, 
E.E.T.S., where we see in a farsure of the creed a cross 
inserted thus — "done on the ^ and ded he was." The 
sign may have been made here. In the Constanz Missals of 
1503 and 1579, the Passau Missal of 1522, and other German 
Missab, there is the following— " homo factus est. ^ Cruci- 



y Google 



at the Creeds. 33 

signing has come to be regarded in certain 
quarters as a Catholic custom ! How then are 
we to account for its recent introduction ? 

The allusion to the Abb6 Falise's work, just 
made, suggests an answer to the question. In 
the modern Roman Missal, immediately before 
the Nicene Creed, is the rubric, " In fine, ad 
£t vitam venturi sseculi, signat se signo cruets a 
fronte ad pectus." » «* In the end, at And the life 
of the world to come, he signs himself with the 
sign of the cross from the forehead to the breast" 
In the Ritus celebrandi Missam, we read 
similarly, ** Cum dicit, £t vitam venturi sseculi, 
Amen, producit sihi manu dextra signum crucis a 
fronte ad pectus " « " When he says, And the life 
of the world to come, Amen, he traces upon 
himself with the right hand the sign of the cross from 
the forehead to the breast" Here, in this modern 
direction of the Roman Missal, we seem to 
find the source from which the signing with 
the cross at the conclusion of the Apostles' 
Creed appears to have been borrowed in recent 
times amongst us. We say, this modem direc- 
tion of the Roman Missal; for, to tell the 
truth, the use of the sign of the cross at the 
conclusion of the Nicene Creed does not seem 
to be very ancient. No such direction is given 

fixus ..." The holy sign wa^ evidently made in the Nicene 
Creed, as indicated by the cross. This use of the cross in 
connection with expression of belief in the Crucified is 
explained by Durandus, as will be seen later in this article. 

X Missale Romanum, Venetiis, 17 13. 

« Cap. vi. § 3, Ibid. 

D 



y Google 



34 Signing with the Cross 

in the Roman Missals of 1474 and 1554 ; nor 
in the Carthusian Missals of 1679 or 1771, 
where the rubrics are very full. Christopher 
Marcellus, in his Rituum Ecclesiasticorum, Libri 
tres, which appeared in 1516,^ docs not mention 
the signing at the Nicene Creed, though he 
describes that at the Gospel.' 

When we examine the history of the signing 
at the end of the Nicene Creed in the Roman 
Church, a remarkable fact presents itself. It 
was, like genuflection during the Canon of the 
Mass, practised in the West at the close of the 
twelfth century, though not ordered in the 
rubrics of the Roman Missal until 1570. John 
Beleth, who is said by many authorities to 
have flourished about 1182,3 wrote, **Pronun- 
tiato symbolo, sub finem ipsius debet fieri 
signum crucis, quoniam verbum est evan- 
gelicum non secus atque ipsum Evangelium, 
nisi quod sit verbum abbreviatum. . . . Simi- 

I This work was the precursor of the Caremoniale Epis- 
coporum^ which appeared in 1600. In later editions of C. 
Marcellus' work, the title is altered to Sacrarum Ccere- 
moniarum^ and it is by this latter title that the book is 
generally known. 

■ Lib. ii. cap. 2, fol. Ixx 3, Venetiis, 15 16. 

3 Other authorities however assign him a later date, 
namely, 1328. Vide Leslie Stephens, Dictionary of 
National Biography^ 1885. The latest author quoted by 
Beleth seems to be Rupertus Tuitiensis, who died 1135 • <^'* 
Beleth's Rationale ^ cap. 123. Durandus, who wrote his 
Rationale about the year 1280-90, is said by Catalani to 
have followed Belethus :''... apud Joannem Belethum 
in Explicatio Divinorum Officiorum, ex quo auctore Duran- 
dus desumpsit.'' — Catalani, Sacrarum Ccsremoniarum^ Lib. 
ii. tit. i. cap. li. § 8. 4. Romae, 1750. 



y Google 



at ike Creeds. 35 

liter quoque in omnibus verbis evangelicis 
signum crucis fieri oportet, quemadmodum sub 
finem Orationis Diminicse, Gloria in excelsis^ 
Benedictus^ Magnificat^ et Nunc Dimitiisy quae 
omnia perinde atque Evangelium stando audiri 
debent." » ** When the Creed has been said, 
the sign of the cross ought to be made just 
before the end, for the Creed is an evangeUcal 
form no less than the Gospel itself, except that 
it is a shortened form. ... So too the sign of 
the cross ought to be made at all evangelical 
forms, as at the end of the Lord's Prayer, 
Gloria in Excelsis, Benedictus^ Magnificat^ and 
Nunc Dimiitis, which like the gospel, ought all 
to be listened to standing." 

Durandus, who wrote his Rationale Divin- 
orum Officiorum during the latter half of the 
thirteenth century, names the crossing at the 
Nicene Creed as one of the signings usual in 
his time. In treating de Symbolo,« he justifies 
it on the ground of the connection of the Creed 
with the Gospel : the Creed is a summary of 
the Gospel, and therefore, in his eyes. Evan- 
gelical. It is to be observed that Durandus 
connects all the public signings with the 
Gospel. His words are, ** Sane regulariter 
omnibus evangelicis verbis debemus facere 
signum crucis, ut in fine evangelii, symboli, 

I Rationale Divinorum Officiorum^ auctore J. Beletho, 
cap. xl. Migne, Patrologise, torn ccii. 

* Durandus, Rationale Divinorum Officiorum^ Lib. iv. 
cap. 25. Lyons, per Jacobum Sacon, 15 10. 



y Google 



36 Signing with the Cross 

dominicae orationis, Gloria in excelsis Deo, 
Sanctus, Agnus Dei, Benedictus Dominus 
Deus Israel, Magnificat et Nunc Dimittis, 
et in principio horarum, et in fine missae 
quando sacerdos dat benedictionem, et etiam 
ubicunque de cruce vel Crucifixo mentio fit."* 
" Now we ought to make the sign of the cross 
regularly at all evangelical forms, as, for 
example, at the end of the Gospel, of the 
Creed, of the Lord's Prayer, of Gloria in 
Excelsis Deo, Sanctus, sanctus, Agnus Dei, 
Benedictus Dominus Deus Israel, Magnificat 
and Nunc Dimittis, and at the beginning of 
[each] hour, and at the end of mass when the 
priest gives the blessing, and also wherever 
there is mention of the cross or of the 
Crucified.** 

Durandus, sub Evangelio, also mentions 
the signing at Gloria tibi Domine, before 
the Gospel.' John Burchardt, at the very 
beginning of the sixteenth century, speaks of 
the signing at the end of the Nicene Creed 
thus: **Et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen. 
Et dum hac ultima verba pfofert^ producit manu 
dexira stgnum cruets a fronte ad pectus" 3 <* And 
the life of the world to come. Amen. And 
whilst he says these last words, he traces with his 



I Lib. V. cap. 2. See previous footnote, p. 32, note 3. 

» Lib. iv. cap. 24. 

3 Ordo Aft'ssa, in Cochleus, Spiculum Missce^ Venetiis, 
1572, p. 208 b. The first edition of Burchardt's Ordo Missa 
appeared in 1502. 



y Google 



at the Creeds. 37 

right hand the sign of the cross from forehead to 
breast." 

From the foregoing, we gather that it was 
held that the signing at the Nicene Creed was 
an extension of the signing at the Gospel and 
Gloria in excelsis, which signings, as we shall see 
later in this article, are rery ancient, and can 
claim great authority. 

II. 
There is, however, another explanation of the 
signing at the Nicene Creed, which has been 
suggested, — namely that it was originally 
borrowed from the earlier custom of signing 
at the end of the Apostles' Creed, which 
prevailed in a certain district of Italy in the 
fourth century. Ruiinus, who was born in 
about the year 345, twenty years later than 
the Council of Nicaea, in his commentary on 
the Apostles' Creed, says, at the words, Hujus 
carnis resurrectionem^ *< Satis caute fidem Symboli 
Ecclesia nostra docet, quae, in eo quod a 
caeteris traditur, Carnis Resurrectionem, uno 
additio pronomine tradidit, Hujus carnis re- 
surrectionem, hujus, sine dubio, quam habet 
is qui profitetur, signaculo crucis fronti im- 
posito; qui sciat unusquisque iidelium, carnem 
suam, si mundam servaverit a peccato, futurum 
esse vas honoris . . ." ^ ** Very carefully does 
our Church teach the faith of the Creed, 

X DiFiiU et Symholo^ ed. Heurtley, p. 167. Oxford, 1884. 
The date of Rufinus' Commentary is about the year 390. 



y Google 



38 Signing with the Cross 

because the sentence which is taught by the 
rest as the resurrection of the flesh, she teaches 
with the addition of a pronoun — the resurrection 
of this flesh, of this, without doubt, which he 
has who professes the faith, when he makes 
the sign of the cross on his forehead ; so that 
each of the faithful may know that if they 
keep their flesh clean from sin, it will be a 
vessel of honour in time to come.** The 
insertion of " hujus," before ** carnis," was one 
of the peculiarities of the Creed of the 
Aquileian Church ; * and it is fair to say that, 
in all probability, the signing named at the 
word "hujus,** was at first merely a local 
peculiarity at that Church also. Mayer is of 
opinion that this particular practice spread 
from Aquileia to other Churches. ** Verisimile 
igitur est, eundem usum ab Aquileiensi in alias 
Ecclesias postliminio dimanatum fuisse." ^ 
"So it is very likely that the same usage 
afterwards became spread abroad from the 
Church of Aquileia to other Churches.'* 
Mayer thus confirms the notion that the 
signing at the end of the Apostles' Creed 
was not the general custom, at least in its 
beginnings. Moreover, Rufinus' words natur- 
ally refer to the baptismal 'profession,' and not 
to any other recitation of the Apostles* Creed, 

I See Smith's Die. of Christian Biography , sub. Rufinus, 
Vol. iv. p. 560. 

■ Explic. Cartm, Eccles, Part ii. cap. xi. p. 245. Tugii, 
1737. 



y Google 



at the Creeds. 39 

which does not then appear to have existed 
except as a private matter. His words are 
therefore satisfied by the baptismal signing 
with the cross, and do not necessarily imply 
that the cross was used on other occasions at 
this point of the Apostles' Creed. 

This theory of the adoption of a local custom 
of signing at the Apostles' Creed at Baptism, 
in the case of the later signing at the Nicene 
Creed, is very interesting. It is interesting, 
because, whilst the custom of signing at the 
Nicene Creed, was, in process of time, gener- 
ally adopted on the continent, and ultimately 
incorporated in the rubrics of the Roman 
Missal in 1570, there is no evidence at present 
forthcoming that the signing at the Apostles' 
Creed was ever generally adopted outside the 
area of the Aquileian Church. The ** Ecclesia 
nostra " of Rufinus' commentary refers to his 
own Church, and no other. In fact, as we 
have already observed, the signing in question 
is not practised in the Roman Church to-day. 
No argument, therefore, can be based on the 
words of Rufinus in regard to any general 
adoption of the custom in other Churches. 
It seems highly improbable that the practice 
of the Aquileian Church in the fourth century 
is the source and origin of the practice of 
signing at the end of the Apostles' Creed, 
recently introduced in some English churches. 
The theory that the signing at the Apostles* 
Creed in late years in England is copied 



y Google 



40 Signing with the Cross 

or borrowed from the Roman signing, now 
usual at the Nicene Creed, is much more 
probable.* 

z Pierre le Brun, in his invaluable Explication de la Messe 
(Part ii. Art. viii. Vol. i. p. 275. Lie^e, 1777), has a 
reference 'to Rufinus' words, which we give in full- with a 
translation. It is to be observed that Le Brun is comment- 
ing on the signing at the end of the Nicene Creed, and not 
at the Apostles* Creed. 

" Sur le signe- cU la croix que It prilre fait d la Jin du 
* Credo,^ Le pr6tre fait sur soi le signe de la croix en 
pronon9ant ces dernieres paroles : Et vitam^ etc. On voit 
dans Rufin qu*au iv« siecle tous les Chretiens faisoient sur 
eux le sig&e de la croix en finissant la recitation du Symbole 
des Apdtres. Ce Symbole finissoit alors dans la plupart des 
Eglises par camis resurrectiottem^ comme nous Tapprennent 
le m6me Rufin, saint Jerdme, saint Augustin et plusieurs 
autres. On commen9oit ce signe en disant camis^ et comme 
Ton portoit la main au front, on ^toit determine k dire camis 
hujus resurrectionem^ pour montrer que c*etoit cette m^me 
chair qu*on touchoit, qui ressusciteroit. Quelque terns 
apres on ajouta ces mots, Vitam aternam^ Amen^ qui 
marquoient quelle est la resurrection que nous croyons et 
que nous esperons. Saint Cyprien, au iii® siecle, et Saint 
Cyrille de Jerusalem, au milieu du iv«, avoient marqu^ cette 
addition, ou cette explication, et elle devoit ^tre assez 
commune en 381, lorsque les Peres du seconde concile mirent, 
dans le Symbole que nous expliquons, Et vitam futuri 
saculi, Comme les Chretiens ^toient accoutum^s it finir la 
recitation du Symbole par le signe de la croix, le pr^tre a 
observe est usage k la messe." 

** Upon the sign of the cross which the priest makes at the 
end of the Creed, The priest signs himself with the cross 
in saying these last words, Et vitam^ etc. We learn from 
Rufinui, that in the fourth century all Christians signed 
themselves with the cross at the end of the Apostles* Creed. 
This Creed concluded then in most Churches by Camis 
resurrectionem, as we are taught by Rufinus, St. Jerome, 
St. Augustine and others. They began the signing in saying 
camis^^ and, as the hand was raised to the forehead, point 
was given to the words camis hujus resurrectionem^ to 
show that it was the same flesh which they touched which 
should rise again. Some time after, were added these words : 



y Google 



at the Creeds. 41 

III. 
In the English Missals no direction, as we 
have already said, is given for any signing at 
the end of the Nicene Creed. The directions 
for the celebrant in the Sarum customs book 
are so full, that we may assume that it was 
unknown at Sarum. At the conclusion of the 
Nicene Creed, a bow only is prescribed.' Becon, 
in his scurrilous The Displaying of the Popish Mass^ 
does not allude to it. In the Legenda Aurea 
(Caxton's edition, a.d. 1483), in the <* History 
of the Mass," the crossings are described at 
the Gloria tibi before the Gospel, and at the 
Benedictus qui venit ; but none is mentioned at 
the conclusion of the Creed. It is true that, 
in some German Missals, a cross is printed 

Viiam atemum. Amen, which described what is the resurrec- 
tion in which we believe and for which we hope. St. Cyprian, 
in the third century, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the middle 
of the fourth, had marked this addition or explanation, and 
it must have been quite common in 381, since the fathers 
of the second council put in the Creed, which we are 
explaining, £^ viiam venturi saculi. As the Christians 
were accustomed to finish the recitation of the Creed with 
the sign of the cross, the priest has observed this custom at 
the Mass." In reviewing this passage, we do not think that 
Le Brun is justified in appl]ring Rufinus' words to "all 
Christians" (tous les Chretiens). If the custom became at 
all general, it is most remarkable that it never was recog- 
nised in the Roman rubrics, and that it has entirely 
disappeared in the West until recently revived in the 
English Church. It is to be observed, too^ that Rufinus L<t 
not commenting on the Mass Creed, but on the Apostles' 
Creed, and that he is referring to the profession of faith at 
Baptism. See p. 38, above. His allusion is quite inade- 
quate to establish the practice in question. 
X See The Use of Sarum, Frere, p. 286. 



y Google 



42 Signing with the Cross 

between the words, homo factus est, and 
crucifixus, but not later in the Creed. The 
only English authority at present known for 
the gesture is that of the Lincoln customs 
book,* «* Et hec crucis consignatio fit hie, . . . 
et in fine Credo in unum^ cum dicitur, Et vitam 
futuri secuH." A solitary instance, such as this, 
is quite insufficient to establish the custom 
under review. In appealing to precedent, it is 
not the exception but the rule to which we are 
to look. 

And, this being the case, in regard to the 
Nicene Creed, what can be said in favour of 
making the sign of the cross at the Apostles* 
Creed ? If authority from precedent, as far as 
the English Church is concerned, is inadequate 
to establish the custom of signing at the 
Nicene Creed, it is much more so in the case 
of the Apostles' Creed. If our surmise as to 
the origin of the latter signing given above 
is correct, it is a pseudo-Roman custom — a 
corrupt following of the modern Roman 
practice of signing at the end of the Nicene 
Creed. Our only verdict must be, that, taken 
as a whole, it does not seem a practice that 
the clergy, at least, are bound to take up. It 
cannot be defended by any appeal either to 
authority or precedent, but appears to rest 
merely upon the sentiment of private indi> 
viduals. 

X Lincoln Cathedral Statutes^ H. Bradshaw and Chr. 
Wordsworth, Vol. ii p. 153, §§ 52, 54. 



y Google 



at the Creeds. 43 

IV. 
It may perhaps be well to say» in conclusion, 
at what liturgical moments (during the celebra- 
tion of the Eucharist), the public signing of the 
person, as distinguished from the celebrant's 
private signing of the elements, is authorised 
by precedent. They are as follows; in the 
present order of the English rite : 

i. At the response, Gloria tibi Domim^ to the 

giving out of the Holy Gospel, 
ii. At the beginning of the Benedictus qui 

venit, following the Sanctus. 
iii. At the close of the Gloria in excelsis. 
These three signings were the custom at 
Sarum, where the customs-book has, **ad 
Gloria tibi Domine semper ad altare se convertat, 
signo crucis se signans. Quod ter ad missam 
publice observetur, scilicet ad Gloria in excelsis^ 
quando dicitur in gloria Dei Patris; et post 
Sanctus cum dicitur Benedictus qui venit.** ' ** At 
Gloria tibi Domine, (the choir) shall always turn to 
the altar and make the sign of the cross, which 
shall be made openly at mass three times; 
namely, in the Gloria in excelsis, when ' in gloria 
Dei Patris ' is said ; and after the Sanctus, when 
* Benedictus qui venit ' is said." At Lincoln, in 
the year 1236, we find, " Cum respondet Gloria 
tibi Domine debet se ad altare convertere et 
crucis signaculo communire. Et hec crucis con- 
sign atio fit hie et in fine Gloria in excelsis, cum 
dicitur in gloria Dei Patris : et in fine Credo in 
* The Use of Sarum, Frere, pp. 21, 286. 



y Google 



44 Signing with the Cross 

unuMi cum dicitur ef vit^m fuiuri secuK : et in 
fine SanctuSi cum dicitur Benedictus qui vmii in 
nomine Domini ... Ad Gloria tihi Domine : et 
tunc signo crucis se signent ; quod (ter) ad 
Missam publice observetur, sc. ad Gloria in 
excelsiSf quando dicitur Dei Patris^ et ad Gloria 
tihi Domine^ et post Sanctus^ cum dicitur Bene- 
dictus qui venit.'* < It will be observed here, as 
stated before, that this signing at the end of 
the Nicene Creed at Lincoln forms the only 
case yet discovered in old English uses. In 
the Legenda Aurea,* in "the History of the 
Mass," we read, "that the people be more 
incited to hear the Evangel of God, the 
priest representeth the place of God, and 
saith: Sequentia sancti evangelii^ et cetera^ in 
making the sign of the cross to the end that 
the enemy may not empesh (hinder) him : then 
the clerks and the people answer, Gloria tihi 

Domine Then the priest saith the 

Evangel, the which finished and said, the 
priest warneth himself with the sign of the 
cross, to the intent that the enemy may not 
take away firom the creatures' hearts the word 
of God . . . ' Blessed be he that cometh in 
the name of God,* and for this blessing, which 
is so sweet, the priest maketh a cross." 
The date of this portion of the Legenda Aurea 
is the first half of the fourteenth century. 

X Lincoln Cathedral Statutes^ H. Bradshaw and Chr. 
Wordfworth, Vol. ii. p. 153, §§ 51-55 ; Vol. iii. p. 333. 
» Vol. vii. pp. 233, 238, Dent & Co., 1900. 



y Google 



at the Creeds. 45 

There is no mention -of any crossing at the 
Gloria in excehis. In Mr. Frere's edition of 
The Exposition of the Mass^^ is an illumination 
showing the congregation signing at the 
Gospel, with the thumb of the right hand. 
The Lay Folks' Mass Booh gives no direction for 
signing at the Gloria in excelsis, but at t' 
beginning of the Holy Gospel," — ^the prie 
upon the book and upon the face ; the peo] 
*'a large cross on thee thou make," and 
second signing at the end of the Gosp 
«*when it is done, thou make a cross," 
given for the priest in the Legenda Aure 
In Christopher Marcellus' Rituum Eccle 
asticoruMf published at Venice in 15 16, ^ 
read, *<Cum autem dicit, Seguentia San 
Evangeliif etc, t signat cum pollice dextro librui 
deinde frontem, os, et pectus."* "When ] 
says Sequentia Sancti Evangelii^ etc., he mak 
the sign of the cross with his right thum 
upon the book and upon his forehead, mout 
and breast." Lydgate's Virtue of the Mi 
(Harl. MS. 2251, fol. 1826.), has, "The Gosp 
begynnethe withe tokene of tau: the boo! 
first crossed, and after the forehede." In tl 

X Alcuin Club Coll. ii. Plate 6. 
» pp. 16, 18. E.E.T.S. 

3 The Ordo Romanus ii. notices the custom of pub 
signing at the end of the Gospel in the following term 
** Perlecto evangelio, iterum se tigno sanctae crucis popul 
munire festinat."' — Mabillon, Museum Italicum^ VoL 
p. 46. 

4 Lib. ii. cap. ii. fol. Ixx^. Venetiis, 15 16. 



y Google 



46 Signing with the Cross 

Additions to the Rules of the sisters of 
Syon it is directed, " The prose or sequence 
ended, they schal turne to the auter, so 
enclynynge at the Gloria tihi Domine, whan the 
preste enclynethe, makyng a token of the 
crosse in ther forehedes, and upon ther 
brestes, as the maner is.'*' John Myrc, in 
his Instructions for Parish Priests^* has — 

<< And whenne the Gospelle I-red be schalle, 
Teche hem thenne to stonde up alle, 
And blesse hem 3 fey re as they conne 
Whenne Gloria tibi ys by-gonne." 

In The Myroure of oure Ladye, no crossing is 
named at the Gloria in excelsis, but only at the 
Benedictus, " At the begynnynge of Benedictus, 
ye turne to the aulter and make the token of 
the crosse upon you in mynde of our Lordes 
passyon.'*^ The profane Becon refers in his 
usual odious manner to the priest's crossing at 
the Gospel, apparently at its close, •* a piece of 
the Gospel being once read, they stroke them- 
selves on the head and kiss the nail of their 
right thumb." s 

* Aungier, History and Antiquities of Syon Monastery^ 
p. 327 ; vide The Lay Folki Mass Book ^ p. 217. 

« E.E.T.S., p. 9, lines 278, ff. 

3 To ** blesse hem" is, in Old English, to sign himself 
with the cross. 

* E.E.T.S., p. 330. The Myroure was a book printed 
for the nuns of Syon, a.d. 153a 

5 JVorks, iii. The Displaying of the Popish Mass, p. 257. 
Parker Soc 



y Google 



at the Creeds. 47 

We conclude our study by saying that, ac- 
cording to English pre- Reformation precedent, 
there is no authority whatever for any signing 
at the end of the Apostles' Creed ; and the very 
slightest precedent for any signing at the con- 
clusion of the Nicene Creed. The public 
signings during the Eucharist, are, as stated 
above, only three in number, namely : before 
the Gospel, at the Benedictus^ and at the con- 
clusion of the Gloria in excelsis. To these may 
be added the signing at the Benediction, at the 
conclusion of the Service. 



NoTB I. Amongst the earliest explanations of the 
symbolic meaning of the sign of the cross, that of Inno- 
cent III. elected pope in 1198, died 1216— given in his 
De Sacro Altaris Mysterio^ Lib. iL cap. 44, possesses con- 
siderable interest. '* Est autem signum crucis tribut dip^itis 
exprimendum, quia sub invocatione Trinitatis imprimitur, 
de qua didt propheta : Quis app€ndit tribus digitis molem 
terra (Isai. xl.), ita quod de superiori descendit ad inferius, 
et a dextra transeat ad sinistram, quia Cbristus de coelo 
descendit in terram, et a Judseis transivit ad gentes. 
Quidam tamen signum crucis a sinistra producunt in 
dextram, quia de miseria transire debemus ad gloriam, 
sicut et Christus transivit de morte ad vitam, et de inferno 
ad paradisum, praesertim ut seipsos et alios uno eodemque 
panter modo consignent." 

" Now, the sip;n of the cross is to be formed with three 
finders, because it is imprinted under the invocation of the 
Trinity, of which the prophet says : * Who hath compre- 
hended the dust of the earth in three fingers ' (Isai. xl. 
Vulgate), so that it descends from the upper part to the 
lower, and crosses over from the right hand to the left, 
because Christ came down firom heaven to earth, and 
crossed over from the Tews to the Gentiles. Some how- 
ever make the sign of the cross from left to right because 
we ought to go from misery to glory, like as Christ also 



y Google 



48 Signing with the Cross 

passed from death unto life, and from the place of darkness 
to paradise, especially so that they sign both themselves 
and others in one and the self -same manner." 



NOTB II. On the importance of the signing with the 
cross at the liturgical Gospel, the following may serve : 

"Dum titulum S. Evangelii diaconus cantat, signat 
crucis signo primo librum, deinde sdpsum. Ritus ille 
antiquissimus est, et in Ordinibus Romanis prseceptus ; 
cujus expositio in Missali Athanatensi anni 1556, his verbis 
exprimitur : Librum signat^ ac si dicat^ hie autem est 
liber Cruafixi, Sacerdos autem vel diaconus Evangelium 
iecturus se signat in fronte, in ore, et in pectore, quasi 
dicatf nan erubesco Evangelium, ipsum ore prosdicare, et 
corde credere, Simili cruce se signant fideles, qui assistunt, 
non minus antiquo more. Quam dum olim formabant, 
haec verba adjiciebant : Crucis vivificct signo muni Domine 
omnes sensus meos cut audienda verba S, Evangelii corde 
credenda, et opere complenda. Quae formula extat in 
antiquissimo Codice San-Dionysiano, tempore Caroli M. 
exarato. . . . Habetur prseterea ex Ordine Romano 
secundo, populum ad finem Evangelii iterum signo crucis 
se munire consuevisse, (quae quidem consuetudo etiamnum 
viget in plebe nostra) ut quod ex divinis eloquiis cut salutem 
percepit, signatum sigillo crucis atque muniium permaneat" 
— Mayer, Explicatio Ceremoniarum Ecclesiasticarum^ 
Tugii, 1737, pp. 220, 226. 

"When the deacon sings the title of the Holy Gospel, 
he first signs the book and then himself with the sign of 
the cross. This is a very ancient rite, and is prescribed in 
the Roman Ordines ; there is an explanation of it in the 
Ainay Missal of the year 1556, in these words : 'He 
signs the book as if to say, Now this is the book of the 
Crucified. And when the priest or deacon is about to 
read the Gospel he signs himself on his forehead, on his 
mouth, and on his breast, as if to say, I am not ashamed 
of the Gospel — either to preach it, or to believe it in my 
heart.' In like manner the faithful who assist sign them- 
selves with the cross, and by a custom no less ancient At 
one time when they did this, they added these words : 



y Google 



at the Creeds. 49 

* Defend, O Lord, all my senses with the sign of the life' 
giving cross, that, hearing the words of the Holy Gospel, I 
may believe them in my heart, and fulfil them in my 
actions.' This form exists in the very ancient Codex San- 
Dionysius, written in the time of Charles the Great. , . . 
Furthermore, we gather from the second Ordo Romanus, 
that the people were also accustomed to defend themselves 
with the sign of the cross at the end of the Gospel (and 
indeed this custom still flourishes among our people), ' that 
that which they receive to their health from the divine 
words may remain signed and defended with the seal of the 
cross.'" 

The signing at the Gospel is referred to in Ordo Romanus 
i., "Et postquam dixerit Sequentia sancti Evangelti, facit 
cruds signum in fronte sua idem diaconus, et in pectore ; 
similiter episcopus et omnis populus." — Mabillon, Museum 
Italicum, Vol. ii. pp. 45, 46, Paris, 1689 : also in Appendix 
Ordinis Romania Ibid. p. 553, " Diaconus cum ascendit ad 
legendum . . . et populus signum sanctae crucis singuli 
faciunt in frontibus suis, ut per signum sanctae crucis sint 
loricati: quatenus nulla fantasia diabolicse fraudis aditum 
inveniat introeundi in corda eorum, et auferre possit semen 
evangelii de manibus eorum." 

"And after the deacon has said Sequentia sancti Evan- 
geliii he makes the same sign of the cross on his forehead, 
and on his breast : likewise the bishop and all the people." 
"When the deacon goes up to read [the Gospel] ... the 
people also make the sign of the holy cross, each upon his 
forehead, that they may be defended by the sign of the 
holy cross : that no illusion of the deceit of the devil may 
find an entrance to go into their hearts, and carry away the 
seed of the Gospel from their hands. " 

The first Ordo Romanus^ quoted above, dates from the 
early part of the eighth century. 

The second Ordo Romanus^ quoted above, is a Galilean 
recension of the first Ordo Romanus^ and is not strictly 
speaking Roman. 



y Google 



y Google 



tTbe position of tbe 'Reaber of 
tbe Xiturgical £pidtle. 



yGoogle 



Utility, authorization, symbolism, the normal 
order in regard to ceremonial, pp. 53—55. Caution 
necessary in any appeal to mere utility, p. 55. 
Undesirable customs concerning the reading of the 
liturgical Epistle, pp. 55, 56. Testimony of Le 
Brun as to reader facing the people, pp. 56 — 57. 
The Roman custom, p. 57 ; its origin, pp. 58 — 62. 
Disuse of the ancient ambones, pp. 60, 62. History 
of the Roman custom, pp. 62, 63 ; its supposed 
symbolic meaning, p. 63. In the English Church, 
the Epistle to be read to the people, pp. 64; in 
accordance with declared English principles, pp. 
65 — 67. Further evidence produced from English 
precedent, pp. 67 — 70. Conclusion, 70. Note i., 
on the continental custom of reading the liturgical 
Scriptures in the vernacular, pp. 71, 72. Note 2., 
on the use of ambones, p. 72. Note 3., testimony of 
Bishops Andrewes and Cosin, pp. 72, 73. 



y Google 



III. 

THE POSITION OF THE READER OF 
THE LITURGICAL EPISTLE. 

IT is hardly open to question, that all good 
ceremonial observances are reasonable; 
that is to say, they are founded on good 
reasoning, and so commend themselves to 
common sense. We find this to be the case in 
almost every piece of authorised ceremonial 
of the Church. At first, a given ceremony is 
introduced because of its usefulness ' : its use- 
fulness being proved and acknowledged, the 
Church next authorises it : and, being 
authorised, a symbolical meaning becomes in 
due time attached to it. To state this process 
in other words:— a custom commends itself by 
its convenience ; its prevalence attracts the 
notice of the authorities, who, adapting them- 
selves to circumstances and the public opinion, 

I Upon this question of the practical nature of ceremonial, 
Mr. Edmund Bishop, in his Genius of the Rotnan Rite^ pp. 
12, 13, says, in regard to the oblation, '* There are careful 
and somewhat lengthy directions as to the mode in which 
these offerings are to be collected. It is of importance, 
however, to observe that these directions are not ceremonial, 
but simply practical, purely practical, to ensure good order 
or to prevent blundenng." And, again, "The thing had to 
be done, and it was done in a plain and simple but the most 
practical manner." 



y Google 



54 The Position of the Reader 

give it their sanction ; when sanctioned and 
established, it is found advisable to justify 
the custom by attaching a meaning to it.' 
This fairly represents what has taken place 
again and again in the history of ceremonial. 
Utility : authorization : symbolism : — this 
represents the normal order in the matter of 
religious ceremonies. 

For example, in regard to the use of lights 
and incense, Bishop Andrewes wrote — " There 
were lights, there was incense used by the 
primitive Church, in their service. Not for 
any mystical meaning, but (as it is thought) 
for this cause: that where the Christians in 
time of persecution had their meetings most 
commonly in caves and grots under-ground, 
places dark and so needing light, and dampish 
and so needing good savours, they were enforced 
to provide lights against the one, and incense 
against the other. After, whence peace came, 
though they had churches then above-ground, 
with light and air enough, yet retained they 

I " Sunt etiam multi ejusmodi ritus, qui initio ob solam 
cautam naturalem, veluti ob necessitatis, commodi, decorive 
causam introducti sunt ; quibus tamen postea mystica 
significatio accessit. Ita : cingulum ad vinciendam albam 
praescripsit Ek:clesia ; sed subinvoluit ilium esse etiam i>uri- 
tatis symbolum. Nonnulli tales ritus progressu temporis in 
mysterium penitus abieri. Exemplum in manipulo habemus, 

3ui olim erat pannus lineus ad sudorem abstergendum 
estinatus $ nunc vero purum ornamentum seu symbolum 
est, admonens sacerdotes : quod laborare pro Deo et 
sudorem pro mercede sempitema fiindere debeant." — 
Liturgica Sacra Catholica, Carolus Kozma de Papi, p. 7, 
2nd ed., Ratisbon, 1863. 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 55 

both the lights and the incense^ to show them- 
selves to be the sons and successors of those 
ancient Christians, which, in former times, 
had used them (though upon other occasion), 
showing their communion in the former faith, 
by the communion of the former usages. 
Whereto the after-ages devised meanings and 
significations of their own, which from the 
beginning were not so." » 

We, in the English Church, need to be very 
careful in making any appeal to mere utility 
in justification of the introduction of new 
ornaments and ceremonies ; because almost 
every piece of illegal or undesirable ceremonial 
from which we are now suffering has been 
introduced on the score of its utility. In the 
present distracted state of the English Church, 
in regard to ceremonial, it is surely primarily 
imperative to conform literally to the rubrics 
of the Book of Common Prayer, as the only 
hope of attaining some degree of uniformity. 
When the rubrics are obeyed all round, it 
will be time enough to begin to think of cere- 
monial enrichment on the score of utility — 
not before. 

Now, there is a custom, of which we are 
about to treat, in recent years intruded in 
some of our churches upon the faithful, for 
which, as matters now stand in the English 
Church, neither utility, ecclesiastical sanction, 
nor reasonable symbolism, can be rightly 

« Minor Works^ pp. 33, 34. Lib. Anglo-Cath. ThcoL 



y Google 



56 The Position of the Reader 

claimed. We refer to the custom of reading 
the Epistle at the Eucharist towards the East, 
and so away from the congregation. This 
custom is closely associated with another 
practice, which can only be similarly described 
—that of the faithful kneeling upon their 
knees, whilst the Epistle is being read towards 
the East.' In fact, this latter custom may be 
said, broadly speaking, to have arisen from the 
former, as its natural consequence. How have 
these customs been recently introduced in 
(England? 

I. 
In the early Ordines and liturgical writers, 
we find no trace of reading the Epistle or the 
Gospel with the reader's face turned away 
from the people. Pierre Le Brun, the learned 
Roman liturgiologist, states that the Oriental 
custom is to read the Epistle, the reader facing 
the people, that is, westward. He says, 
^'Les Arm^niens sont louables d'avoir conserve 
Tancien usage de T^glise d'Orient, . . . Les 
lecteurs se tenant dans le choeur chantent 
la Prophetic et I'^pttre tourn6s vers le 
peuple." • " The Armenians are praiseworthy 
in having preserved the ancient usage of the 
Eastern Church, . . . The readers in the choir 
sing the Prophecy and the Epistle turned 

' See the following article in this volume. 
* Explication de la Messi, Diss. x. Art 14, Vol. iii. 
p. i6a Liege, 1778. 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 57 

towards the people." Previously, in allusion 
to the modem rubric of the Roman Missal, 
which directs the celebrant to read the Epistle 
submissa voce to himself whilst the subdeacon 
is chanting it, Le Brun says, " L*usage ancien 
et plus natural est que tout le monde ^oute 
le soudiacre."' *'The ancient and more 
natural custom is that everyone listens to the 
subdeacon." Durandus, who wrote his cele- 
brated treatise, Rationale Divtnorum Qficiorum, 
during the second half of the thirteenth 
century, mentions that it was the custom in 
his time to chant the Epistle towards the altar 
— ** Facies autem Epistolam legentis respicere 
debet altare," adding, as is his wont, as a 
symbolical reason, ** quod Christum significat," 
with an allusion to St. John Baptist going 
before the face of our Lord.* ^* The face of 
the one who reads the Epistle ought to look 
towards the altar, because (the Epistle) fore- 
shadows Christ." The present practice of the 
Roman Church is, as we have said before, for 
the celebrant at High Mass to read the Epistle 
to himself facing East ; whilst the subdeacon 
sings it aloud, facing East also. The rubric 
runs thus : *' In Missa solemn! subdiaconus 
• . • vadit ad partem Epistolse contra altare, 
et cantat Epistolam, quam etiam celebrans 
interim submissa voce legit, assistente sibi 

< Explication de la Messi^ Part IL Art. 5, Vol. i. p. 200. 
See later in the present work. 
* Lib. iv. cap. xvL 



y Google 



58 The Position of the Reader 

diacono a dextris."' "At a solemn Mass the 
subdeacon goes to the Epistle-side facing the 
altar, and sings the Epistle, which the cele- 
brant also reads meanwhile in a low voice, the 
deacon standing by him on the right." 

If we enquire how the Roman method of 
reading the Epistle to the altar, away from the 
people, has been arrived at in the course of 
time, we find apparently that the process has 
been that described at the commencement of 
this article. The custom seems to have been 
established on the score of practical utility, in 
view of the Epistle being in Latin, leading 
to ecclesiastical sanction, and followed by 
attempted symbolical justification. At least 
such an explanation is natural, if not obvious. 
The ancient practice was to read the Epistle 
from the ambo or pulpit outside the choir, 
turning towards the people; in fact, in the 
same position as the sermon. So Bona states : 
" Solebslnt autem antiquitus tam Epistola 
quam Evangelium legi in ambone seu pulpito, 
ex quo etiam episcopus condones habebat.** * 
" The Epistle and Gospel used anciently to be 
read in the ambo or pulpit, from which also 
the bishop used to preach." Sometimes the 
reader faced South, in order that he might be 
heard both by the clergy in the choir and at 
the altar, and also by the people in the nave 
or body of the church. In adopting this 

' Miisale Romanum. Hitus celebrandi Missam^ vi. § 4. 
• Rirum Liturg. Lib. ii. cap. 6, § 3. Antwerp, 1739. 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 59 

posture, the reader avoided turning his back 
on any of his hearers.' 

In cases where, from the size of the church, 
the reader in the ambo was with difficulty 
heard by the clergy at the altar, it was the 
custom to read the Epistle also in the 
choir for the benefit of the clergy, and facing 
the altar. Mabillon, in his Iter Italicum, a.d. 
1685, refers to his visit to the church of St. 
Clement at Rome, where he saw three ambones, 
which he thus describes; "Tres sunt in in- 
ferior! choro ambones, unusex parte Evangelii, 

< " The reading of the Epistle and Gospel at the altar is 
in itself modem ; in early times they were read in the ambo, 
pulpit, or rood loft ; and an examination of these ancient 
ambones will show us that the Scripture lessons were, and 
still are, read in many churches so as to be best heard of 
all such as are present In the Collegiate Church of St. 
Ambrose at Milan, the ambo is in the nave, on the north 
side of the church, the reading desk being placed so that 
the reader faces direct south. The lection (which in the 
Ambrosian rite precedes the Epistle), the Epistle, and the 
Gospel, are all read from this desk, an arrai^ement better 
than any other for letting both clergy and people hear the 
words read. The sermon follows from the same place. In 
the Metropolitan Church at Milan there are two ambones 
facing each other on the north and south side of the church 
at the end of the nave, the gospel desk facing south, the 
epistle north. So in St. Mark's at Venice there are two 
ambones at the east end of the nave ; from which the 
Gospel and Epistle are read. Sermons are preached from 
the epistle ambo. At Pisa the same arrangement exists as 
in the Metropolitan Church at Milan ; and instances might 
be extended almost indefinitely of ancient ambones in Italy 
and Spain which have their desk directed to the south ; or 
even turned towards the nave, to the south-west."— J. 
Wickham Legg, On Somt Ancient Liturgical Customs now 
falling into Disuse. St. Paul's Eccles. Soc. Trans. Vol. 
iL pp. 124, 125. 



y Google 



6o The Position of the Reader 

duo ex parte Epistolae : quorum alter lectorium 
habet versus altare pro lectionibus ad chorum 
sacerdotum ; alter pro epistola Missae versus 
populum."* "There are three desks in the 
lower (part of the) choir, one on the Gospel 
side, two on the Epistle side: of which one 
has the place for the book turned towards the 
altar for reading the lessons to the choir 
of priests ; the other desk is for the epistle 
of the Mass, and is turned towards the 
people." Catalan!, however, speaks of the 
Epistle-ambo in the church of St. Clement, 
as turned towards the altar (see note i. 
below). Ciampini states that the ancient 
ambones in Rome fell into disuse during 
the removal of the pontifical chair to Avignon 
in the year 1309.' Pierre Le Brun remarks, 
**Quand on chante VEpitre, le Pritre la lit d 
voix basse, L'usage ancien et le plus naturel 
est que tout le monde ^coute le soudiacre, et 

z Museum Ita/icum, Vol. i. p. 60. Paris, 16S7. Catalani 
refers to the arrangements of the church of St. Clement as 
follows, ** Locus legendse Epistolse, ut aliquid de antiquo 
ritue dicamus, erat ambon ad id destinatus, extabatque in 
cancellis dextris chori versus altare. In vetustissima S. 
dementis in Urbe Ecclesia, quae hodie est Fratrum Ordinis 
Prsedicatorum, duo a dextra parte chori ambones visuntur, 
alter versus altare pro Epistola legenda, alter pro legendis 
Prophetis versus populum ; tertius vero a sinistris tantisper 
altior, et ornatior pro Evangelio." — Sacrarum Caremoni- 
anim sivi Rituum EccUsiasiicorum Sancia Romanes 
Ecclesia^ Lib. iL Tit. i. de dominicis adventus, § 6. Romse, 
1751. 

' Vide Hope's Historical Essay on Architecture, p. 94, 
quoted in Th$ British Magazine, 1841. VoL xix. pp. 343, 
344. 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 6i 

c'est pour Tdcouter que les Missels de Paris 
(sedentibus omnibus. Miss. Paris, ann. 1685, 
1706, et 1738.) marquent que tout le dionde 
est assis. Mais les ev^ques et les pr^tres^ 
n'entendant peut-^tre pas bien le soudiacre, 
k cause de T^loignement du jub^, ont 6t6 bien 
aises de lire eux-m^mes TEpitre. C'est pour- 
quoi les Us de Citeaux, imprimis h. Paris en 
1643 et 1664, et rOrdinaire des Guillemites en 
1279, ont marqu^ que.le pr^tre pouvoit lire 
dans le Missel (interim sacerdos sedeat usque 
ad Evangelium, et in missali legere potest. — 
Ordin. Miss. Guilleltn. Us.). L'Ordinaire des 
Jacobins en 1254, ^^ celui des Carmes en 1514, 
veulent qu'apr^s la collecte, le pr^tre s'^tant 
assis, on lui mette sur les genoux une serviette 
et un Missel pour y lire ce qui lui plaira." > 
" When the Epistle is sung, the priest reads it in a 
low voice. The ancient and more natural custom 
is that everyone listens to the subdeacon, and 
it is in order to hear him that the Missals of 
Paris point out that everyone is seated. But 
the bishops and priests, not perhaps hearing 
the subdeacon well, on account of the distance 
of the ambo (pulpit) were very glad to read the 
Epistle themselves. That is why the Use of 
Citeaux, printed at Paris in 1643 and 1664, 
and the Ordinary of the Guillemites in 1279, 
have pointed out that the priest might read in 
the Missal. The Ordinary of the Jacobins in 
1254, and that of the Carmelites in 15 141 direct 
I Explication de la Messe, Part ii. Art v. Vol. i., p. 200. 



y Google 



62 The Position of the Reader 

that, after the collect, the priest having sat 
down, there should be placed on his knees a 
napkin and a Missal for him to read out of it 
what he pleased." 

Here we find the origin of the custom, which 
now obtains in the Roman Church, of reading 
the Epistle away from the people. The Epistle 
being in Latin, and therefore not understood 
by the people, no practical good could result 
from their hearing it': as a matter of utility^ 
it was therefore found unnecessary to read it 
to them from the ambo or pulpit outside the 
choir, as had been the earlier custom. And 
so, whilst the reading of the Epistle to the 
congregation from the ambo was abandoned, 
the reading of it to the clergy in choir and at 
the altar continued, and has survived down to 
the present day. Thus it came to pass that 
the Epistle came to be regarded as the private 
business of the celebrant and clergy, to be 
performed to suit their own convenience, 
without reference to the presence or edifica- 
tion of the faithful. Possibly, in the case of 
the celebrant, another reason entered in. The 
Missal, containing the Epistles, being usually 
a somewhat heavy book, it would be found 

X It is significant to observe that, in Bishop Challoner's 
The Garden of the Soul, which is probably the most popular 
of all Roman Catholic manuals of devotion for the laity, 
they are allowed to say a prayer whilst the Epistle is being 
read in Latin. " During the Epistle you may pray thus : A 
Prayer at the Epistle^ Thou hast vouchsafed, etc. "—rii^ Gar- 
den o/theSoul^ London, 1798, p. 81, sub Devotions for Mass. 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 63 

convenient to rest it upon the altar-cushion or 
desk. We have only to stand up with a heavy 
book in our hands, and proceed to read aloud, 
to find out the inconvenience for ourselves. If 
the Epistle at Low Mass was to be read from 
a volume placed on the altar, it would be 
natural to place it so that the celebrant should 
face East. If the reader, as at High Mass, 
was the subdeacon, he too would naturally 
adopt the celebrant's position of facing East, 
Secondly, as to ecclesiastical sanction ; The 
custom in question being generally adopted for 
convenience sake, it remained for the Church 
to adapt herself to the practice, by giving it 
her sanction. This was done, as we have seen, 
in the rubrics of the Roman Missal, quoted 
above. Thirdly, as to symbolism : The custom 
of reading the Epistle to the East having been 
adopted for convenience sake, and established 
by authority, it was not unnatural to seek a 
symbolic meaning for it, and so to justify it in 
the eyes of the faithful. This symbolic reason 
or reasons were with some ingenuity found; 
as, for example, those stated by Durandus, and 
named above ; or again, by assuming that, as 
the Mass is a sacrificial action, every part of 
the Service must perforce have the nature of 
an offering made to God. Probably other 
meanings have been attached by rubricists to 
the custom under review.' 

< '' As a reason for reading Holy Scripture not facing the 
people, I have been told that the liturgical Epistle and 



y Google 



64 The Position of the Reader 

II. 

Now, the process here described was natural 
and appropriate enough, so long as the Epistle 
was read in a language not understanded of 
the people. But when the Epistle is read in 
the mother-tongue, as is happily the case in 
the English Church, the whole fabric of induc- 
tion is at once rudely shaken and overthrown ; 
and each argument used on behalf of the 
process becomes immediately invalid. This 
we now proceed to demonstrate. 

The primary purpose and sole justification 
of reading the Holy Scriptures in the mother- 
tongue is obviously that the people may under- 
stand what is read. The Epistle is read in 
English, in order that the faithful may hear 
and profit thereby. This being the case, as it 
undoubtedly is, it is both natural and reason- 
able that the reader should <* turn himself as 
he may best be heard of all such as are present, 

Gospel are acts of worship, and therefore properly read as 
if Almighty God Himself were being addressed. I have 
never met with this reason in print, and I cannot but fancy 
that it has been forced by the necessity of finding some 
explanation after the act itself had been determined upon, 
as so many of the so-called 'mystical' reasons are. But 
the Epistle and Gospel occur in the Missa Catechuminorum^ 
the period of instruction and of sermon, when Eucharistic 
worship has not yet begun ; a fact which seems to destroy 
the theory of the Gospel being an act of worship. In the 
national rites, though not at Rome, the priest and deacon 
sit during the Epistle, a posture which ill accords with the 
idea that it is an act of worship." — Ancient Liturgical 
Customs now falling into Disuse, J. W. Legg. Trans. 
S.P.E.S., Vol. ii. p. 125. 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle, 65 

reading distinctly with an audible voice.' This 
direction, concerning the reading of the Lessons 
at Choir offices, states the principle which the 
English Church lays down in the case of all 
public reading of the Scriptures. It is both 
natural, reasonable, and in accordance with 
the declared intention of the English Churchy 
that the reader should face his hearers and 
read to them for their edification. In the case 
of the Epistle at the Eucharist this is self- 
evident, since the Epistles contain a consider* 
able amount of practical exhortation. The 
very word * epistle ' signifies a * letter.' When 
the father of a family receives a letter from an 
absent son, intended for the whole household^ 
he naturally reads it to them. If he was to 
read the letter in their presence with his face 
to the wall, he would be considered mad. It 
is thus quite as inconvenient and inappropriate 
for the celebrant or epistler to read the Epistle 
turning away from the congregation, as it 
would be for the preacher to turn his back on 
the people. In the case of the Epistle, as 
being a portion of inspired Scripture, there is 
a peculiar irreverence in the custom which we 
are exposing: it is not only inappropriate, 
inconvenient, and unreasonable; it is positively 
irreverent. Holy Scripture is written for our 
learning. A schoolmaster faces his scholars 
when he teaches them a lesson. 

I Rubric concerning th$ Lessons, Book of Common 
Prayer. 



y Google 



66 The Position of the Reader 

We have already alluded briefly to the 
principle of the English Church in the matter 
of reading the Scriptures to the people. In 
the year 1661, the Puritans expressed their 
objection to the custom of saying any parts 
whatever of the services towards the East. 
The matter came up before the bishops who 
gave us the last revision of the Book of 
Common Prayer. To the rubric in the Com- 
munion Service, " Then shall the priest or the 
bishop (being present) stand up, and turning 
himself to the people, say thus ; ** » the Puri- 
tans made the following exception — "The 
minister turning himself to the people is most 
convenient throughout the whole ministra- 
tion:" to which the bishops replied — **The 
minister's turning to the people is not most 
convenient throughout the whole ministration. 
When he speaks to them, as in Lessons, Abso- 
lution, and Benedictions,* it is convenient that 
he turn to them. When he speaks for them to 
God, it is fit that they should all turn another 
way, as the ancient Church ever did." 3 Now, 
this answer is very much to the point in regard 
to the position of the minister during the 
reading of the Epistle ; for (i) the objection 
made by the Puritans was founded on a rubric 

I Rubric before the Absolution^ Service of Holy Com- 
munion. 

' laddentally, this directioa prohibits the practice of the 
priest facing East during the recitation of the first half of 
the Blessing at the Eucharist. 

s Cardwell, Hist, of Conferences^ pp. 320, 353. 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 67 

in the Communion Service, and the bishops* 
answer is given under the heading "The 
Communion Service "—their replies under the 
heading "Concerning Morning and Evening 
Prayer" being given previously. Their answer 
primarily applied to the Communion Service, 
"the whole ministration/* There is no "minis- 
tration" of Morning and Evening Prayer: 
there is "The Order of the Administration of 
the Holy Communion" in the Prayer Book. 
(2) The order of the sentence, " Lessons, Ab- 
solution, and Benedictions," is that in which 
these things occur in the Communion Service, 
and not in the Choir offices. Moreover, there 
is no Benediction appointed in the latter. It 
is therefore highly probable that by the " Les- 
sons," the bishops meant the liturgical Epistle 
and Gospel. We may safely say, at the least, 
that the liturgical Scriptures or Lessons are 
to be included within the scope of their 
declaration, that "when the minister speaks 
to the people, it is convenient that he turn to 
them." 

III. 
There is another piece of evidence in regard 
to the subject before us in this article, to which 
we will next allude. When we examine the 
rubrics of the Communion Service, we find no 
direction given as to where or how the Epistle 
and Gospel are to be read. We are there- 
fore justified in looking for earlier English 



y Google 



68 The Position of the Reader 

precedent ; and for a precedent, if one can be 
found, which concerns the reading of the 
liturgical Scriptures in English. And such a 
precedent exists. If we turn to the First 
Prayer Book of Edward VI., we find the fol- 
lowing rubric, following the direction for the 
reading of the lessons at Morning Prayer: 
'< And, to the end the people may the better 
hear, in such places where they do sing, there 
shall the lessons be sung in a plain tune, after 
the manner of distinct reading: and likewise 
the Epistle and Gospel." This rubric occurs 
in the Prayer Books of 1549, 1552, and 1559* 
It is to be observed, that it follows the direc- 
tion for the first and second lessons to be 
read "distinctly with a loud voice, that the 
people may hear, by the minister standing and 
turning him so as he may best be heard of all 
such as be present." From the following 
direction as to the Epistle and Gospel being 
sung '* after the manner of distinct reading, to 
the end the people may the better hear," it is 
to be inferred that, in reading these liturgical 
Scriptures, the minister is also to '< turn him 
so as he may best be heard of all such as be 
present." 

That this actually was the position intended, 
is proved by King Edward VI.'s Injunctions of 
1547, which were still in force and had estab- 
lished the precedent followed in 1549, when 
the First Prayer Book was imposed. The 
2ist injunction runs thus: « In the time of 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 69 

high mass within every church, he that saith 
or singeth the same, shall read or cause to be 
read the Epistle and Gospel of that mass in 
English and not in Latin, in the pulpit, or in 
such convenient place as the people may hear 
the same. And also every Sunday and holy- 
day they shall plainly and distinctly read, or 
cause to be read, one chapter of the New Testa- 
ment in English, in the said place at Mattins 
immediately after the lessons; and at Even- 
song, after Magnificat^ one chapter from the Old 
Testament." ' Upon this, it is to be observed, 
(i) that from the beginning of the reading of 
the Epistle in English, it was ordered to be 
read towards the people " in the pulpit, or in 
such convenient place as the people may hear 
the same." This was the custom inherited 
and already binding when the First Prayer 
Book appeared : and there has been no subse- 
quent authorization of any other direction 
up to the present day.* (2) The injunction 

* Cardwell, Dot. Anna/s, Vol. i. pp. 13, 14. 
Probably, if not certainly, as a result of the Injunctions 

of 1547, quoted above, we find that there was made at 
St. Margaret's, Westminster, in that year a " stone in the 
body of the church, for the priest to declare the 'Pistells and 
Gospells." — Illusiralions 0/ the Manners and Exptncis of 
Antient Times in England^ Lond. NichoUs, 1797, p. 12. 
See Note at the conclusion of this article. 

* In 1 56 1, we find Bishop Parkhurst, of Norwich, enquir- 
ing, " Whether the lessons, epistels and gospels be redde 
or songe so as they may be plainli harde of the people." — 
JUL Com, Second Report, p. 401. 

In Archbishop GrindaPs Injunctions for the Laity, given 
at York in 157 1, we find, — "The prayers and other service 



y Google 



70 The Position of the Reader 

quoted connects the reading of the liturgital 
Scriptures and that of the lessons at Choir 
offices in such wise, that the directions con- 
cerning the former hold good in principle in 
the case of the latter, and vice versi. Thus 
we may fairly say, that the absence of any 
direction in our present Prayer Book for the 
posture or position of the reader during the 
reading of the Epistle and Gospel, is reason- 
ably to be supplied from analogy, by consulting 
the explicit directions given in that Book for 
the posture or position of the reader of the 
lessons at the Choir offices. 

We claim to have established very com- 
pletely that the appeal to principle, to 
authority, and to precedent, gives one and 
the same result, namely, that the Epistle (and 
the Gospel) is to be read by the minister 
towards the people ; and that, as a conse- 
quence, there is not a particle of evidence 
to be produced that it is intended that the 
Epistle (or the Gospel) should be read facing 
East* We can only say, in regard to the 
latter method, *' we have no such custom/' 
The evidence, in fact, the other way is so 
complete, that any resort to modern foreign 
usage as a model is as unnecessary, as it is 

appointed for the ministration of the Holy Communion be 
said and done at the communion table, except the Epistle 
and Gospel, which shall be read in the pulpit or stall.'' — 
Remains t p. 132. Parker Soc. 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 71 

on many accounts disallowed. We can only 
marvel that, with such ample materials at 
hand, anyone can have doubted for a moment 
what our Church intends in this matter. 



NOTB I. — As an example of the foreign custom, which is 
quite common, of reading the Epistle and the Gospel at High 
Mass to the people in the vernacular, from the pulpit, before 
the sermon, the following may serve. This reading how- 
ever is not liturgical ; and it goes to prove that the reading 
of Holy Scripture during the celebration of the Eucharist is 
not an act of^ worship. 

Strasbourg. Manuale seu Compendium Riiualis Af^gn- 
tinensis . . . jussu . . . Armandi Gastonis S,R,E» 
Cardinalis Di Rohan . . . Ed. secunda, Argentinae, 
1780. . p. 32a 

Di Fronao, "Singulis dicbus Dominicis et Festis, 
saltern solemnibus, in unaquaque Ecclesia Parochiali . . . 
haberi debet concio, aut sermo familiaris de lege divina, 
vel ante, vel intra Missam Parochialem, pro cujusque loci 
consuetudine. 

" Si fiat intra Missam, Parochus, immediate post Evan- 
gelium, deponet Casulam et Manipulum super Altare in 
comu Epistolae, pulpitum seu cathedram conscendet, et 
facto super se signo crucis, dicens vemacula lingua : In 
nomine Fatris^ dr» //7«i, &* Spirilus Sancti, Amen, Leget 
Epistolam Missae diei lingua vulgari, hoc sequent! admo- 
nitione praemissa : 

**Voici, Mes Freres, I'Epttre de la Mcsse de ce jour, 
que je vais vous lire. Elle est tir^e du . . . 

'*Hic notabit Librum & caput Scripturae sacrae, unde 
desumpta est Epistola, quam simul atque legerit, dicet : 

<* Je vais aussi vous lire TEvangile. II est tlr^ du . . . 

The following is a translation of the foregoing : 
••Every Sunday and Festival, at least every solemn 
Festival, in every Parish Church . . . there ought to be a 
Sermon, or a plain discourse about the divine law, either 
before or during the Parish Mass, according to the custom 
of each place. 



y Google 



72 The Position of the Reader 

" If it take place during the Mass, the Curate, imme- 
diately after the Gospel, shall lay down his Chasuble and 
Maniple on the Epistle-horn of the Altar, and going up 
into the pulpit or reading desk [?], shall make the sign of 
the cross upon himself, saying in the vulgar tongue : In the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost. Amen. He will read the Epistle of the Mass of 
the day in the vulgar tongue, having nrst said as follows : 

<* This, My Brethren, is the Epistle of the Mass of the 
day, which I am about to read to you. It is taken from 

" Here he will specify the Book and chapter of Holy 
Scripture, from which the Epistle is taken, and as soon as 
he has read it he will say : 

'* I am also about to read the Gospel to you. It is taken 
from . . ." 

Note II. — In reference to the ambones in the church of 
St. Clement, Rome (p. 60), the following extract from TAe 
British MagatifUy 1841, Vol. xix p. 344, is interesting: 
'*At St Clement's, according to Ciampini, the Gospel yiz% 
read by a deacon, who turned towards the adjoining aisle 
when the tn$n of the congregation were few in number, and 
all collected in that part, but in the opposite direction when 
the church was fully occupied. On the opposite side of the 
choir, near the women's aisle, we perceive a staircase 
between two platforms, of which that towards the altar is a 
pulpit, enclosed on three sides, for reading the Epistle ; the 
other has, at the opposite end, an open desk, supported by 
a small pillar, for the Graduale (a short anthem sung 
between the Epistle and Gospel). On this, Ciampini 
remarks that, however the church might stand with respect 
to the cardinal points, the Epistle must be read towards the 
altar. He assigns no reason for this custom, which would 
now-a-days seem strange, but must have been perfectly 
appropriate when an epistle was really an address to the 
Church assembled, from some absent apostle or bishop. 
The reader would then, of course, direct his voice towards 
the clergy who sat behind the altar, and the principal laymen 
and women whose places Were near the sides of it." 



Note III. — In the Notes on the Book of Common Prayer 
attributed to Bishop Andrewes (who died in the year 1626), 
we find the following : " Immediately after the Collect, the 
Priest shall read the Epistle, Here the other priest, or if 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 73 

there be none, he that executetb, descendeth to the door, 
adoreth, and then turning readeth the Epistle and Gospel." 
— ^Andrewes' Miner Works ^ p. 152. Lib. Anglo-Cath. Theol. 

Amongst the alterations in the Prayer Book suggested by 
Bishop Cosin in 1661, we read — " Immediately after the 
Collects, the priest or one appointed, shall turn to the 
people and read the Epistle. '^-Cosin's Works^ Vol V. p. 
513. note. lib. Anglo-Cath. TheoL 



y Google 



y Google 



t^be posture ot tbe l^earera of 
tbe Uiturdical Cpfatle. 



yGoogle 



No direction given in the Prayer Book as to the 
posture of the faithful at the Epistle, p. 77. The 
mistake of consulting modem Roman usage, pp. 77, 
78. Kneeling during the reading of the Epistle not 
medieval, p. 78. Testimony of Belethus, and 
Durandus, pp. 79, 80. Custom at Lincoln in 1236, 
p. So. Sitting for the Epistle, the custom at Rome 
in 1516, p. 81. Testimony of Bp. Hooper in 1551, 
pp. 81—83. Later testimonies, pp. 83 — 86. An 
argument against kneeling for the Epistle drawn 
from the direction to stand for the Gospel, pp. 
86, 87. Kneeling for the Epistle an abuse, pp. 87, 
88. Appendix i.. Evidence of the Roman Ordincs 
and the CaremoniaU Episcoporum in favour of sitting 
for the Epistle, pp. 89—92 ; other similar evidence, 
pp. 92—94. Appendix 2., Witness of the old 
ritualists against kneeling for the Epistle, pp. 
95—98. 



y Google 



IV. 

THE POSTURE OF THE HEARERS 

OF THE LITURGICAL EPISTLE. 

IN the previous article we made some 
remarks upoa the position of the reader 
of the Epistle at the Eucharist. We came to 
the conclusion that the proper position to be 
adopted is undoubtedly that in which the 
reader faces the people, and so that he may 
be best heard by them. We now pass on, in 
the present article, to consider what is the 
proper posture to be adopted by the lay-people 
during the reading of the Epistle. Whilst it 
is expressly ordered by the rubric of the Book 
of Common Prayer that they should stand to 
hear the Gospel, no direction whatever is given 
as to the posture to be adopted whilst they 
hear the Epistle. We must therefore look 
elsewhere for guidance. 

I. 
Some persons, about fifty years ago or less, 
feeling the need of direction upon this point, 
apparently adopted the rough and ready 
method of consulting the usage of the modern 
Roman Church in this matter, and of taking 
that usage as their model. The result of this 
unauthorised appeal is seen in many of our 



y Google 



78 The Posture of the Hearers 

English churches in the present day — the laity 
kneel for the Epistle; or, to speak more 
correctly, they remain kneeling whilst it is 
being read. Kneeling during the reading of 
the Epistle is the continental custom at Low 
Masses, according to the directions of the 
rubrics of the Roman Missal, which order 
that at Low Mass the assistants shall kneel 
all the time, except during the Gospel' It 
is to be remembered that the ceremonies of 
Low Mass in the Roman Church, compared 
with those of High Mass, are modern : they 
have been greatly influenced by the inability 
of the people to follow the Latin service. In 
the matter before us, this is conspicuously the 
case, for the custom of kneeling during the 
reading of the Epistle is not medieval. Pei- 
liccia tells us, that from the eighth, and 
especially since the ninth century, in the 

I '* Circumstantes autem in Missis privatis semper genua 
flectunt, etiam tempore Paschali, prseterquam dum legitur 
Evangelium." — Ruhr. Gen. Missalis. xvii. 2. 

The posture of the Roman Catholic laity during the 
Epistle IS described as follows in Catholic Customs, a Guide 
for the Laity in England, pp. 63 ff., (Catholic Truth Soc. 
London. 1900). **At the beginning of High Mass all 
kneel until the Gloria has been said by the celebrant. 
When he sits, the congregation sits. When the choir has 
finished the Gloria, the celebrant rises and goes to the altar 
to sing the pra^^ers for the day. ... If you have been 
sitting down during the prayers, you remain sitting through- 
out the Epistle, until tne beginning of the Gospel. If, 
however, you were standing during the prayers, you sit as 
soon as the priest begins the Epistle. At Low Mass, you 
kneel when the priest begins Mass, and remain kneeling 
until the beginning of the Gospel." 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 79 

Western Church, it was the custom both for 
the celebrant and the other ministers, and also 
for the congregation, to sit down after the 
collect; and that this custom was kept up 
almost to the fourteenth century.' 

This conclusion is strengthened by a refer- 
ence to Belethus, who flourished at the close 
of the twelfth century, who says, '* Epistola 
Pauli deinde legitur, ad quam genua non 
flectimus, quoniam ad novum pertinet testa- 
mentum." « ** An Epistle of Paul is then read, 
at which we do not kneel, since it belongs to 
the New Testament." Durandus, writing 
some three hundred years before the con- 
clusion of the period known as the Middle 
Ages, and following Belethus, said, '' Cum 
autem dicitur Epistola genua non flectimus, cum 
ad novum pertineat testamentum, immo sede- 
mus, quia doctrina in quiete et silentio audienda 
est. Usus etiam sedendi a veteri testamento 
assumitur, sicut in Esdra legitur." 3 «<Now 
when the Epistle is read we ^o not kneel, 
seeing that it belongs to the New Testament ; 
but we sit, because teaching should be listened 
to in quietness and silence. Indeed the custom 
of sitting is taken from the Old Testament, as 
we read in Esdras *' (Ezra x. 9. All the people 

X Tke Polity of the Christian Church, Trans. Bcllett 
p. 232. For authorities for this statement, see Appendices 
I. and II. of this essay. 

' Belethus, Rationale Div. Offic, cap. cxxxiv. de institu- 
tione jejuniorum Quatuor Temporum. 

s Durandus, Rationale^ lib. iv. cap. 16. 



y Google 



So The Posture of the Hearers 

sat in the street of the house of God : and Ezra the 
priest stood up, and said unto them • • .). Duran« 
dus goes on to say: ^'Milites tamen stare 
consueverunt quando Epistolae Pauli leguntur, 
in honore ejus, quia miles fuit, Unde in 
signum militiae suae depingitur cum ense in 
manu, vel ideo quia ipse suam praedicationem 
Evangelium nominavi t. " ' '' N e vertheless, when 
the Epistles of Paul are read, soldiers are ac- 
customed to stand in honour of him, because he 
was a soldier. Hence, as a sign of his warfare, 
he is painted with a sword in his hand, or else 
because he himself spoke of preaching the 
Gospel as warfare." 

At Lincoln, in the year 1236, in the same 
century as that in which Durandus wrote his 
Rationale,* it was the custom to sit during the 
reading of the Epistle: <*Ad missam eciam> 
sedetur dum lecciones et epistole leguntur." 3 
*'At Mass also people sit while lessons and 
epistles are read." At Sarum the clerks sat 
during the Epistle : " Notandum est, quod 
omnes clerici stare tenentur ad missam, nisi 
dum lectio Epistolae legitur." 4 «« It is to be 
noted that all the clergy are bound to stand at 
Mass, except while the lection from the Epistle 
is being read.** s It is not unnatural to suppose 

X jRationale, lib. iv. cap. 16. ' Durandus died a.d. 1296. 

3 Lincoln Cathedral Statutes^ H. Bradshaw and Chr. 
Wordsworth, Vol. ii. p. 152. § 26. 

4 Missali Sarum, Dickinson, col. 586. See also The Use 
of Sarum t Frerc, p. 293. 

5 A similar order is found at Aberdeen in the 15th century. 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 8i 

that the people followed their example, at least 
such of them as were able to follow the Latin 
service. 

In the year 1516, Christopher Marcellus' 
Rituutn Ecclesiasticorum, sive Sacrarum Caremoni- 
arum Sancta Romafta Ecclesia, was published. 
In Marcellus' treatise, the following passage 
occurs, showing the custom of the Roman 
Church at the beginning of the sixteenth 
century. '* Celebrante dicente ultimam ora- 
tionem, subdiaconus, deposita planeta, accipit 
librum Epistolarum • . . ipse sibi librum 
tenens, dicit Epistolam, omnibus sedentibus." < 
"While the celebrant says the last collect, the 
subdeacon removes his chasuble, and takes the 
book of the Epistles. . • holding the book for 
himself, he says the Epistle, all sitting mean- 
while."* 

In the year 1551, Bishop Hooper, in his 
Injunctions, enquired, «* Whether they " (the 
clergy) "suffer or cause the people to sit at the 

I Lib. ii. cap. ii. fol. Ixx. Venice, 1 5 16. 

' Catalani, in his learned commentary on the Sacrarum 
Caremomarud of Marcellus observes, on the above passage : 
'< Atque hsec antiqua est consuetudo, cujus meminit Hon- 
orius Augustodunensis, lib. i. cap. xiv., ubi sedendum 
scribit, dum subdiaconus Epistolam le^t ; quod affirmant 
etiam Rupertus Abbas Tuitiensis, lib. 1. cap. xxxii. Hugo 
Victorinus, lib. ii. De Ecclesiasticis Officits^ cap. xvii. et 
alii." — Catalani, Sacrarum Carenu>niarum sive Rituum 
Ecclesiasticorum Sancta Romana Ecclesia, Tom. ii. Lib. 
ii. Tit. i. de dominids adventus, cap. ii. §. 6. Romse, 1751. 
The passages from the old ritualists, referred to by Catalani, 
will be found, with translations, in Appendix II. of this 
essay. 



y Google 



82 The Posture of the Hearers 

Epistle, and to stand at the Gospel, and so use 
them both now as superstitiously as they did 
in the time of their massing."* In order to 
understand Hooper's meaning, we must refer 
back to a previous enquiry in the same set of 
Injunctions: "Whether they" (the clergy) 
''sit at one part of their service, kneel at 
another, and stand at another, as they were 
wont to sit when they sang the psalms, kneel 
at Kyrie-eUyson^ and stand up at Magnificat ^ 
Te Deum laudamusy and Benedictus ; the which 
alterance of their gesture caused the people to 
think that the hearing of the service were 
sufficient.*' • Hooper is evidently discouraging 
the attaching of any importance to postures, 
as we should naturally expect of him, and, as 
it seems, the change of posture for the Gospel. 
But what gives his first question considerable 
interest is, that it relates to the old usage in 
vogue, in reference to the posture of the 
hearers of the Epistle, at the time when the 
Latin Mass was celebrated. His enquiry 
affords good and reliable testimony as to what 
the medieval practice was, both at High and at 
Low Mass. The first of the enquiries quoted 
above, "do the clergy suffer or cause the 
people to sit at the Epistle, ... as they did 
in the time of their massing," affords evidence 
of great value that, up to the Reformation, the 

1 Later Writings of Bishop Hooper^ p. 146, § xxvii. 
Parker Soc. 
« Ibid. p. 145, § xviii. 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 83 

faithful sat for the Epistle. Hooper's Injunc- 
tions are mainly taken up with questions 
concerning the continuance of the old customs 
common under the Latin rite. If it had been 
the custom before the Reformation for the 
people to kneel for the Epistle, Hooper would 
almost certainly have said so. It is to be 
observed that Hooper issued these Injunctions 
in 1 55 1, the fifth year of the reign of Edward 
VI, From their comparatively late date, we 
may reasonably conclude that the practice 
of sitting for the Epistle was continued under 
the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., and 
was not unusual, to say the least, in 1551. 

In De Cosremoniis Cardinalium^ Paridis Crassi 
BononiensiSf printed at Rome in the year 1564, 
sub de Epistola, we read, " Et mox Epistolari 
libro deposito, Missali vero sumpto, solus 
stans, sedentibus omnibus capellanis ministris, 
ilium tenet, quo ad Card. Episcopus legerit 
Epistolam." * " And immediately, having laid 
down the book of Epistles, and having taken 
up the Missal, (the deacon) alone standing, 
whilst all the chaplains who minister sit, he 
holds it whilst the Cardinal-Bishop shall read 
the Epistle." » 

J. S. Durantus, writing at the close of the 
sixteenth century, says that the people sat for 
the Epistle. In his De Ritihus Ecclesia Catholica,3 

I lib. i. cap. xxxviii. fol. 32. Venetiis, 1582. 
* pp. 61, 02, of previous essay. 
3 Coloniae Agrippinae, 1592. 



y Google 



84 The Posture of the Hearers 

we find in the table of contents, at the head of 
cap. xviii. in lib. 2., '' Epistola dum legitur, sedet 
episcopus, sedent ministri, sedet et populus.*' 
Then in the text, page 396, we have, " 8. Porro, 
dum legitur epistola, sedet episcopus, sedent 
et ministri." ** While the Epistle is being 
read, the bishop sits, the ministers sit, 
and the people sit. . . . Moreover, while 
the Epistle is being read, the bishop sits, 
and the ministers sit."' Hospinianus, writ- 
ing in 1598, and referring to Durandus* 
Rationale^ says, ** Audit autem populus Epis- 
tolam sedendo." ^ " But the people hear the 
Epistle sitting." 

In the year 1641, we have the following 
evidence, "They (the Church party) tell us, 
that when the Epistle cometh, all may sit 
down, but when the Gospel beginneth, all 
must again rise ; during the time of sermon 
all must stand discovered (uncovered). " 3 
In Qaeen Anne's time (1701-1714) we have 
evidence that sitting for the Epistle was the 
rule. " The Epistle is read ; at which the 
people are allowed to sit, to make the service 

I Durantus adds references to Amalarius Fortunatus, lib. 
3, de Ecclesiast, Offic, cap. 10 ; Innocent iii. lib. 2, Myster- 
iorum Missa, cap. 33 ; Durandus, Rationale, lib. 4. cap. 
z8, Sedere solet et populus ; Rupert, lib. i. cap. 32. These 
passages are given with translations in Appendix II. of this 
essay. 

* Historic Sacramentaria, lib. iii. cap. iii. § 14. de 
Epistola. Genevse, 1681. 

3 A Large Supplement , etc, p. 88. qu. in Hierurgia 
Anglicana, pp. 367, 368. London, 1848. 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 85 

the less uneasy." » Dr. Nicholls, writing in 
the year 1708, and commenting upon the words 
of Durandus, previously quoted,' says, *« It has 
been an ancient custom for the congregation 
to sit to repose themselves during the reading 
of the Epistle," 3 Dr. Bisse, in 1716, says, 
«« There have been two peculiar honours paid 
to the Gospels, which continue in our Church 
to this day. The first is, that all the congre- 
gation stand up at the reading of them, as 
being the word of the Master ; whereas, at the 
reading of the Epistles, they are indulged the 
posture of sitting, as being the words of the 
servants. . . ."^ In 1798, we have, "During 
the reading of the Epistle, the people are 
tacitly enjoined to sit."5 Bishop Mant, in 
1820, quotes Dr. Bisse's words, showing that 
the custom of sitting during the hearing of the 
Epistle was in vogue a century later.^ We 
have here evidence of the practice of sitting 

* A Persuasive to the People of Scotlaftd in order to remove 
their prejudice to the Book of Common Prayer^ by P. Barclay, 
A.M. 2nd ed. London, 1723, p. 112. This book was 
written in Queen Anne's reign; and the 1st ed. was 
published in 1 7 13. 

« See p. 80. 

3 A Comment on the Book of Common Prayer ^ sub Rubric 
for the Epistle. 

* The Beauty of Holiness^ 7th ed. Serm. iv. p. 14a 
Lond. 1720. See Appendix 11. p. 97, of this essay. 

s A critital and practical elucidation of the Book of 
Common Prayer ^ by the late John Shepherd, M. A., Minbter 
of Pattiswicke, Essex, 4th ed., VoL ii. p. 176. London, 
1828. ^ ^ 

* On the Book of Common Prayer, 2nd ed. Oxford, 1822, 
p. 334, note. 



y Google 



86 The Posture of the Hearers 

to hear the liturgical Epistle, in England, 
down to the beginning of the last century. 

II. 
An argument against kneeling for the Epistle 
may be drawn from the direction to stand for 
the Gospel, which bears upon this matter. 
This direction is intended to show greater 
reverence for the Gospel than for the Epistle. 
But since kneeling is with us a posture of 
greater reverence than standing, it follows that 
the posture for the Epistle is that of sitting. 
To kneel for the Epistle, and but to stand for 
the Gospel, is to reverse the intention of the 
rubric, by expressing greater reverence for the 
former than for the latter. There is a some- 
what remarkable question which occurs in 
Bishop Montagu's Visitation Articles of 1638,* 
which sheds some light upon the subject under 
consideration: he asks, "Do your parishioners 
stand also at the reading of the Gospel, and 
bend or bow at the glorious, sacred, and sweet 
name of Jesus, pronounced out of the Gospel 
read ? " Why bow when the Holy Name 
occurs in the Gospel, and not in the Epistle ? 
The answer seems to be satisfactorily given 
from the fact, that persons sitting down are not 
in the convenient posture for bowing. That 
this is the right interpretation, may be inferred 
from Bishop Andrewes' Notes on the Book of 

I Tit. r. 14. Vide Appendix E. Second Report of the 
Royal Commission on Ritual, p. 582. 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 87 

Common Prayer .• » ** In reading the holy Gospel^ 
and never else, is adoration made at the Name 
of Jesus ; for then only is it in its right exalta- 
tion ; and then men stand in a posture ready 
to make reverence," 

From The Lay Folks Mass Book^^ however, 
which dates from the thirteenth century, or 
thereabouts, we find that some of the people 
knelt and said Pater nosters all through the 
Collects and Epistle. 

Knele doun on thy knete sone ; 
If thai singe messe, or if thai saie, 
Thi pater-noster reherce al-waie, 
Till deken or prest tho gospel rede. 

Here we have evidence of the fact that, in 
defiance of directions to the contrary and early 
medieval usage, such as we have just quoted, 
the habit of kneeling was becoming the custom 
in England. But it is to be observed that it 
was a habit practised by such persons as could 
not follow the Latin service, and who filled up 
the time with their own private devotions. 
This is evident from a reference to Texts C, 
and F., of The Lay Folks Mass Book^ which direct 
such persons as can read, to follow the Latin 
office, collect, and epistle; and such persons 
as cannot read, to say Pater nosters.^ That such 
kneeling at the Epistle was an abuse in the 
thirteenth century, is quite obvious, as a con- 

I Afinor fVorJks, p. 152. Lib. Anglo-Cath. Theol. 
« E. E. T. S., p. 16. Text B. lines 150, ff. 
3 pp. 14-17, Texts C. and F., at foot. 



y Google 



88 The Posture of the Hearers 

sideration of the facts stated above goes far 
to prove. That it is an abuse in the English 
Church, now that people can follow the reading 
of the Epistle, is self-evident. Kneeling at any 
time is the posture of adoration and petition, 
the posture natural to us in modern times in 
addressing God, and not in receiving instruc- 
tion. The posture to be adopted during 
instruction from the Scriptures and in other 
ways, is either that of standing or that of 
sitting. But since, as we have said, standing 
during the reading of the Scriptures at the 
Eucharist is ordered in our Prayer Book 
only for the Holy Gospel, it remains that 
the appropriate posture for the laity during 
the reading of the Epistle is that of sitting. 
For the kneeling posture at such a time, there 
is nothing whatever to be said on the score of 
utility, authority, or symbolism. 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 89 

APPENDIX I. 

IN the old Roman Ordines (which date from the early 
part of the eighth century, and which are printed in 
Mabillon*s Museum lialicum. Vol. ii. Paris. 1689), and in 
the Caremoniale Episcoporum (which first appeared in 1600), 
whilst there is no allusion to any kneeling for the Epistle, a 
great point is made of the bishop and presbyters sitting 
after the Collect, whilst the sub-deacon who reads the 
Epistle, and the deacons stand. This will be seen from the 
following quotations : 

'*Deinde in missa non sedebat pontifex ante absolutam 
orationem, c^use Epistoke prsemittitur : eoque sedente ac 
annuente, episcopi et presbyteri sedebant, non vero diaconi 
aut sub-diaconi, aliive ministri. Hue spectat Hieronymi ad 
Evagrium, epistola Ixxxv. Ceterum etiam in ecclesia Rdtna 
presbyteri sedent^ et stant diaconi, ... Si vulgato de 
Romanis Pontificibus libro fides est, Anastasius Papa I. 
constituit, ut quotiescumque satuta Evangelia recitarentur^ 
sacerdotes non sederent^ sed curvi starent," The above 
quotation has regard to the ceremonial of the mass surround- 
ing the Epistle and Gospel : the inference from the last 
sentence is, that the priests were sitting before the 
Gospel. — Museum Italicum^ Vol. ii.. In Ordinem Romanum 
Commentarius ; Singulares ritus Missa pontificalis secundum 
Ordinem Romanum^ et primo ad initio ad Canonem^ iii. 
pp. xli., xlii. 

'*Then the Pope used not to sit down during the Mass 
until the end of the collect which precedes the Epistle: 
when he sat down and, with his consent, the bishops and 
priests used to sit, but not the deacons and sub-deacons, or 
the other ministers. This is referred to in the letter of 
Jerome to Evagrius, 85. But also in the church of Rome 
the priests sit^ and the deacons stand, ... If the book 
published about the Roman popes is to be trusted. Pope 
Anastasius I. ordered, that as often as the holy Gospels are 
recited^ the priests should not sit^ but stand with hecul and 
shoulders inclined,^ 

"Post hoc dirigens se iterum ad populum dicens, Pax 
Vobiscum . . . dicit, Oremus, et sequitur oratio: post 
finitam sedet; similiter episcopi vel presbyteri sedent."— 
Ordo Romanus i. § 9. Ibid. p. 9. 



y Google 



go The Posture of the Hearers 

"After this, again turning to the people and saying, Pax 
Vohiscum ... he says, Oremus^ and the collect follows : 
after it is finished he sits ; likewise the bishops or priests 
«t." 

To this passage Mabillon adds a footnote : " Idem auctor 
(Amalarius) in lib. iii., cap. v., sub initium, tradit morem 
inolevisse, ut non sedeatur in ecclesia ante finem hujus 
orationis." 

" The same author (Amalarius) in book iii., chapter 5, at 
the beginning, tells us that the custom grew up of not sitting 
in church before the end of this collect." 

**Post primum autem datam orationem, Pontifex sedet 
rersus ad populum, et presbyteri cum eo ad nutum ejus, et 
diaconi stant ante Pontificem. Subdiaconi autem ascendunt 
ad altare, statuentes se ad dexteram, sive sinistram. Sub- 
diaconus vero qui lecturus est . . . ascendit in ambonem ut 
Xtigz.V'—Ordo Romanus ii. §§ 6., 7. Ibid. pp. 44, 45. 

**Now after the end of the first collect, the Pope sits 
facing the people, and the priests sit with him at a sign 
from nim, and the deacons stand before the Pope. But the 
subdeacons go up to the altar and arrange themseWes on 
the right or left. The subdeacon, however, who is to 
read [the Epistle] . . . goes up into the ambo to read [it]." 

** Pontifex incipit, Gloria in excelsis Deo, si tempus fuerit. 
Sedere autem non oportet Pontificem, antequam dicant. 
Amen, post priman orationem. . . . Sed ille subdiaconus, 
qui lecturus est, postquam viderit episcopos sive presbyteros 
post Pontificem sedere, quos ipse Pontifex nutu suo facit 
secum considere, tunc ascendit in ambonem, et legit 
lectionem." — Ordo Romanus iii. § 9. Ibid. p. 56. 

"The Pope begins, Gloria in excelsis Deo, if the season 
requires it. But the Pope ought not to sit before they say 
Amen, after the first collect . . • but the subdeacon, who 
is about to read, after he sees the bishops or priests sit 
down after the Pope, who have been directed by a sign from 
the Pope himself to sit with him, then goes up into the 
ambo, and reads the lesson." 

** Et Gloria in excelsis Deo percelebrata, dicatur a Ponti- 
fice, ut mos est, oratio : sedensque ipse annuat presbyteris 
ut sedeant. Ordo Romanus v. § 7. Ibid. p. 66. 

** And when Gloria in excelsis Deo has been said, let the 
collect be said by the Pope, as the custom is : and let him 
sit down and make a sign to the priests that they may sit." 

" Cumque coUectam finierit, lectio legatur. Et sedente 
episcopo. . . ." — Ordo Romanus ri § 5. Ibid. p. 7a. 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 91 

** And when he has finished the collect, let the lesson be 
read. And the bishop sitting down. ..." 

** Dictis orationibus, Pontifex resideat, subdiaconus vero 
dum Pontifex dicit orationem seu orationes, tempore 
opportuno vadit cum libro Epistolarum ad locum in quo 
Epistola legenda est. . . . Dictis orationibus, [sacerdos] 
sedeat usque ad Evangelium." — Ordo Homanus xiv. 53, 61. 
Ibid. pp. 298. 316. 

** When the collects have been said the Pope sits down ; 
while the Pope says the collect or collects, tne subdeacon 
at the proper time goes with the book of Epistles to the 
place in which the Epistle is to be read. . . . When the 
collects have been said, let [the priest] sit until the Gospel." 

"Cum episcopus dicit conclusionera ultimse orationis, 
. . . Sedet deinde episcopus, sedentibus omnibus. Sub- 
diaconus autem accipiens librum . . . extra presbyterium 
a latere sinistro altaris, vel, ubi ita consuetum sit, in 
ambone cantat Epistolam alta voce." — Canmoniaie Epis- 
coporum, lib. ii., cap viii., de Missa Solemni, Episcopo 
celebrante. Paris, 1633. p. 201. 

** When the bishop says the conclusion of the last collect. 
. . . Then the bishop sits, and all sit. But the sub- 
deacon, taking the book . . . sings the Epistle on a high 
note in an am bo outside the presbytery on the left side of 
the altar, or wherever it is customary to do it." 

The Caremoniale Episcoporum has the force of law in the 
Roman Church, and whilst binding primarily in cathedral 
and collegiate churches, is binding secondarily, but equally, 
as regards all matters which concern them, in all churches 
whatsoever which are not exempted by the Pope. (See 
The Monih^ May, 1896. pp. 115, 116.) From a reference 
to L'Abb^ Falise's Sacrarum Rituum Ruhricarumque 
Missalis Dreviarii et Ritiialis Romania 3rd ed., 18(53, 
pp. 154, 155, 296, 297, it is clear that, at high mass, all 
the ministers of the altar stand for the Epistle, but not the 
choir, who sit ; and that at a pontifical high mass, all sit, 
except the subdeacon who sings the Epistle. In several 
respects, the Roman pontifical high mass retains much older 
ceremonies than the ordinary high mass. 

In the Appendix /. Ordinis Romania printed in Mabillon's 
Museum Italicum^ Vol. ii. p. 552, we find a comment on the 
words of Amalarius quoted in Appendix II. of this essay, as 
follows: **/># sessiom episcopi. Quod requiem animarum 



y Google 



92 The Posture of the Hearers 

significet post actam orationem : et quid significet quod 
presbyteri cum eo sedent : et de eo quod versus sit ad 
populum : ostendit datam esse illi potestatem eorum acta 
scrutari. Episcopus quidem post primam orationem, quam 
precationem nominamus, s^et versus ad populum, et 
presbyteri cum eo. In ipsa vero precatione optationem 
bonam Ecclesise intelligimus, quasi dicat populo, Optavi 
bonum Ecclesise ; et ideo sedeo. Et vos quidem si delectat 
requiem possidere animarum, quserite primum regnum Dei, 
et justitiam epus, et ad setema necessaria adjidentur vobis, 
et post invenietis requiem. Stare namque est adhuc in cer- 
tamine posito et orare ; post victoriam vero sedere ac 
judicare. Sedent et prestyteri cum eo. . . ." 

** 0« the sitting of the bishop. That it signifies the rest 
of souls after prayer : and what it signifies that the priests 
sit with him : and about the fact that he sits facing the 
people : it shows that power is given him to examine their 
acts. The bishop, indeed, after the first collect which we 
name precatio, sits facing the people, and the priests sit with 
him. Now in the same prayer we understand the wish for 
the good of the Church, as if he were to say to the people, 
*I have desired good for the Church; and therefore I sit. 
And you, indeed, if you wish to have rest for your souls, 
seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and 
those things which are for eternal life shall be added 
unto you, and afterwards ye shall find rest. For now 
you have to stand in the midst of the contest and to 
pray ; but after victory to sit and judge.* The priests also 
sit with him." 

Missale S. O. Cartusiensi. 1679. 

Feria Sexta in Parasceve. "... Celebrans confessiotum 
facit, . • . deindi sessum vadit^ sedetque tunc Conventus. 
Postea sequitur Lectio, . . . In tribulatione sua." — p* 152. 

Sabbato Sancto. ". . . duabus candelis eucensis^ 
trcecedit confessio : ^ Sacerdos facta oratione^ ^ osculato 
altari more solito, sessum vadit^ &* nos pariter sedemus, 
Statimque sequuntur Lectiones, . . ." — p. 168. 

"The celebrant makes the confession . . . then he 
goes to sit down, and the convent sits at the same time. 
Afterwards follows the Lesson. ... In tribuiatione 
sua,'' 

"... two candles having been lighted, the confession is 
first made: and the Priest, having said the prayer and 
kissed the altar in the accustomed manner, goes to sit down^ 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 93 

and we [i.e. the convent] likewise sit. The Lessons follow 
immediately." 

Missale Romano-Lugdunense, 1868. (In use at the 
present da^.) 

Feria vi. in Parasceve. "Celebrans, facta altari in- 
clinatione, vadit cum Diacono, et si sit Pontifex etiam 
cum suis assistentibus superpelliceo indutis, ad sedem 
suam. Et omnibus sedentibus, Subdiaconus cantat in loco, 
ubi legitur Epistola, Prophetiam sequentem." — p. 149. 

" The celebrant, having made an inclination to the altar, 
goes with the Deacon, and if he be a Bishop, also with his 
assistants vested in the surplice, to his seat. And the Sub- 
deacon sings the following Prophecy in the place where the 
Epistle is read, all sitting." 

Sabbato Sancto. ''incipitur Ofiicium per primam 
Lectionem, sedente interim Celebrante cum Ministris ad 
latus Altaris; sedentibus pariter omnibus in Choro ad 
Lectiones, et Tractus, et stantibus ad Orationes." — p. 161. 

"the Service is begun with the first Lesson, the 
Celebrant meanwhile sitting with his Ministers at the 
side of the Altar; all in choir likewise sitting at the 
Lessons and Tracts, and standing at the Collects." 

Ritus in Missa in Solemni servandus. Cap. IIL p. 70. * 

"§ 15. In Semiduplicibus et supra, Feriisque majoribus, 
legitur Epistola in secundo vel tertio e superioribus stallis, 
a parte Epistolse, prope januam Chori ; reliquis diebus, in 
ejusdem Chori medio." 

"§i8. Procedente ad sedem suam Celebrante, ad 
suas quoque pergunt Induti et alii Ministri, prius 
genuflectentes. 

" § 19. Dicto Amen post ultimam Collectam, Sub- 
diaconus sedens in erecto stallo, distincta et elevata 
voce cantat Epistolam, sedentibus omnibus." 

**§I5. On Semidoubles and feasts of greater dignity 
and on greater Ferias, the Epistle is read in the second 
or third of the upper stalls, on the Epistle side, near the 
door of the Choir; on other days in the middle of the 
Choir." 

**§ 18. When the Celebrant goes to his seat, the vested 
and the other Ministers also go to their seats, first genu- 
flecting. 

"§19. The Amen after the last Collect having been 
said, the Sub-deacon sitting in an upright stall [?], sings 
the Epistle with a clear and high voice, all sitting." 



y Google 



94 The Posture of the Hearers 

Cerenioniali Parisiense. 1703. 

Pars III. Cap. II. D€ Missa festorum annualium. 
Art. V. 

*' Subdiaconus . . . procedit ad amboneni, vel ad 
aquilam, aut alium chori locum, unde commode ab omnibus 
audiri possit. . . . Ubi sunt duo ambones, legit in eo qui 
est ad partem septentrionalem. . . . Dicta coUecta, sub- 
diaconus, nudo capite etiam hyeme, versa facie ad altare, 
. . . clara et distincta voce cantat epistolam, sedentibus 
and audientibus omnibus." — pp. 82, 83. 

"The subdeacon . . . goes to the ambo or to the 
eagle, or other part of the choir, whence he can be con- 
veniently heard by all. . . . Where there are two ambones, 
he reads in that which is on the north side. . . . The 
collect being said, the subdeacon, his head uncovered even 
in winter, and his face turned towards the altar . . . with 
a clear and distinct voice sings the epistle, while all sit and 
listen." 

Good Friday at Paris (Cer, Parisiense. 1703. Pars IV. 
Cap. XIII. Art. II. § 4). "Ad lectiones et tractus, 
sedent omnes, et ad orationes stant." "All sit at the 
lessons and tracts, and stand at the collects." Same on 
Easter Eve. 

The rubrics of the Toulouse Missal of 1832 are to the 
same effect as these Paris directions ; and the same may be 
said of other French churches. 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 95 



APPENDIX. II. 



AMALAKIUS Fortunatus. De ecciesiasticis offUtis^ lib. 
iii., cap. 10. (Hittorpius, Paris, i6ia coL 406.) 
Di Sessione Episcopi, Cap. 10. 

" Deinde Christus ascendit in coelum, ut sedeat ad 
dexteram Patris. Episcopus, quia vicarius est Chnsti in 
omnibus memoratis superius, debet et hie ad memoriam 
nobis inthronizare Chnsti ascensionem et sedem. Qua- 
propter ascendit in sedem post opus et laborem ministerii 
commissi. Christus disposito curru suo per convenientia loca, 
id est, presbyteros in suo ordine, diaconos in suo, sub- 
diaconos in suo, cseterosque gradus in suis, necnon et 
auditores, unumquemque in suo ascendit ad sedem, et 
sedet Sedent cum eo quibus promisit : Cum sederit Hlius 
hominis in sede majestatis suae, sedebitis et vos super 
sedes duodecim, judicantes duodecim tribus Israel. De 
quibus dicit Paulus Apostolus ad Ephesios: Et conresus- 
citavit et consedere feat in caelestibus in Christo Jesu. De 
his qui ascenderunt secum, aliqui sedent, et aliqui stant. 
Per eos qui sedent, demonstrantur membra Christi in pace 
quiescentia : per eos qui stant, in certamine posita. Caput 
et membra unum corpus: quomodo Christus in aliquibus 
sedet, in aliquibus stat (ut ilium vidit Stephanus in certamine 
positus), aliqui ascendentium sedent aliqui stant." 

** Then Christ ascended into heaven, that He might sit 
on the right hand of the Father. The bishop, because he 
represents Christ in all things mentioned above, ought here 
also to bring to our memory the ascension and session of 
Christ. Wherefore he goes up to His seat, after the work 
and labour of the ministry which He has fulfilled. Christ 
having arranged that His chariot should pass through 
suitable places [Lit. his chariot being arranged through 
suitable places], that is, that the priests [should be] in their 
order, the deacons in theirs, the subdeacons in theirs, and 
the other grades in theirs, as well as the people [auditores] in 
theirs, each in his own order, — ascends into His seat, and sits. 
They sit with Him to whom He made the promise : ' When 
the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also 
shall sit upon the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of 
Israel.' Of whom Paul the Apostle [in ^e Epistle] to the 



y Google 



96 The Posture of the Hearers 

Ephesians says : 'And hath raised us up together, and made 
US sit together, in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. ' Of those 
who accompany the bishop, some sit, some stand. By those 
who sit are signified the members of Christ resting in peax:e ; 
by those who stand [are signified] they who are in the midst 
of the contest. The head and the members are one body : 
eren as Christ sits in some and stands in others (as Stephen 
saw Him at the time of his martyrdom), so some of those 
who go up [with the bishop] sit, others stand." 

Honorius Augustodunensis, Gemma Anima lib. i. cap. 
14. (Hittorpios, Paris, 1610. coll. 1 184-5.) ^^ Sabdiacono. 

''Subdiacono iegente solemus sedere lectio, est prae- 
dicatio, sessio, obauditorum responsio, credentium confessio, 
lectores et cantores sunt Domini n^ociatores. Sub- 
diacono Epistolam Iegente, cerei verso ordine ab oriente in 
ocddentem disponuntur, quia lumen doctrinae ab Oriente 
in Occidentem, id est, per totum orbem per Apostolos 
difiundebatur." 

** While the subdeacon is reading [the Lesson or 
Epistle] we are accustomed to sit. The lesson is preaching ; 
the sitting posture is the answer of the hearers and the 
confession of believers; the readers and singers are the 
Lord's agents. While the subdeacon is reading the Epistle, 
the candles are arranged in the reverse order, firom east to 
west, because the light of [Christian] doctrine shone firom 
the East to the West ; that is to say, it was spread through 
the whole world by the Apostles." 

The same writer also says. Gemma Anima, lib. 1. cap. 18. 
Ibid. col. 1 185. 

" Episcopus tribus horismissse sedet, scilicet dum Epistola 
legitur, dum Graduale, et Alleluia cantitur : quia Christus 
tribus diebus inter doctores in templo sedisse legitur." 

'* The bishop sits during three portions of the mass, namely, 
while the Epistle is read and while the Grail and Alleluia 
are sung, because we read that Christ sat three days among 
the doctors in the temple." 

Kuperti Abbatis Tuitiensis, De Divinis Cffficiis, lib. i. 
cap. 32, De Epistola (Hittorpius, Paris, 1610. col. 866). 

" Igitur, morale legis officium agit Epistola, tantum dis- 
tans ab eo, quod in officio Missae praecedit sancto 
Evangelio: quantum servus a Domino, preco a judice, 
legatus ab eo, qui misit ilium. Quapropter cum legitur, 
non injuria sedemus: cum autem sanctum Euangelium 



y Google 



of the Liturgical Epistle. 97 

audimus, demissis reverenter aspectibus, sicut Domino nostro 
assistimus." 

'< Therefore, the Epistle represents the moral work of the 
law, being so far distant from the holv Gospel as it precedes 
it in the service of the Mass. [It diners from it in me same 
degree] as the servant from his master, the herald from the 
judge, the ambassador from him that sent him. Wherefore 
when it is read we not improperly sit : but when we hear the 
holy Gospel, we stand as it were before our Master with fiures 
reverently looking down." 

Hugonis de Sancto Victore Canonid Regularis lAtera- 
nensis. Speculum Di Mysteriis Ecclesiae. lib. ii. cap. 17. 
D$ Epistola, (Hittorpius, Paris, 1610. coll. 1397-8.) 

« Epistola tantum differt ab Evangelio, quantum servus 
a Domino, praeco a judice, legatus ab eo qui misit ilium. 
Quapropter cum legitur Epistola, non injuria sedemus. 
Cum autem Evangelium audimus, dimissis reverenter 
aspectibus sicut Domino nostro assistimus." 

*<The Epistle stands in the same relation to the Gospel as 
the servant to his master, the herald to the judge, the am- 
bassador to him that sent him. Wherefore, when the 
Epistle is read, we rightly sit. But when we hear the Gospel, 
we stand with eyes reverently downcast as before our 
Master." 

Innocent III., De Sacro Altaris Mysteno^ lib. ii. cap. 
33. De sacerdoiis sessuy dum Epistola legitur^ et Graduale 
caniatur, 

" Hactenus tacitus sedebat sacerdos, illud insinuans, quod 
praedicante Joanne, Christus quodam modo tacebat, quia 
non praedicabat aperte. Sed, ut tradit evangelista : Post- 
quam traditus fuit Joannes^ venit Jesus in Galilaeam^ 
praedicans Evangelium regni Dei ^Marc. i.J. Vel quia 
sedere victoris est, sessio sacerdotis Christi victoriam signat, 
qui post jejunium vicit diabolum ; nam reliquiteum tentator^ 
et accesseruni angeliy et ministrabani ei (Matth. iv.)." 

'* Hitherto the priest has been sitting in silence, because 
he represents [Christ, and the Epistle signifies the time of 
St John the Baptist] ; while John was preaching, Christ as 
it were kept silence, inasmuch as he did not preach openlv. 
But as the evangelist says : ' After that John was put m 
prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the 
kingdom of God ' (St. Mark i. 14). But because it is the 
conqueror's privilege to sit, the sitting of the priest signifies 

H 



y Google 



gS The Posture of the Hearers^ etc. 

the victory of Christ, who overcame the devil after his fast ; 
for the tempter left him, and * angels came and ministered 
unto him' (St. Matthew iv. ii)." 

Durandus, Rationale Divinorum Officiorum^ lib. iv. cap. 
1 8. De sessione sacerdoiis ei episcopi et minisirorum, 

'*Oratione finita sacerdos seu episcopus sedet. £t est 
notandum quod in missae officio tribus horis sedet videlicet 
dum epistola legitur . . . . : et dum responsorium et alleluya 
cantantur : significans tres dies quibus dominus sedit hiero- 
solymis in templo in medio doctorum audiens et interrogans 
illos." 

" When the collect is finished the priest or bishop sits. 
And it must be observed that he sits during the office of the 
mass on three occasions, namely, while the epistle is read 
• . . . : and while the responsory and alleluia are sung : 
signifying the three dap during which the Lord sat in the 
temple at Jerusalem in the midst of the doctors, hearing 
them and asking them questions." 



y Google 



Bowlna at tbe flame of 
3e0U0. 



yGoogle 



Religious ceremonial identical in character and 
meaning with the ceremonial of common life, p. 
loi. Certain religious ceremonies pagan in origin, 
pp. loi — 103. Relation of religious reverences or 
bowings to those in vogue in common life, pp. 103, 
104. Authoritative sanction for reverences in the 
English Church, pp. 104, 105. Assumed origin 
of the custom of bowing at the Holy Name, pp. 
105 — 107 ; history of the origin and spread of the 
gesture, pp. 107 — 116. The Injunction of Elizabeth 
in 1559, pp. 116 — i2o; formally established by the 
English Church in 1603^ p. 120; not based on St. 
Paul's words, but on an accustomed usage, p. 121. 
Puritan acquiescence, in 166 1, in the directions of 
the canon of 1603, p. 122. Evidence in favour of the 
gesture from visitation articles of the seventeenth 
century, pp. 123, 124. Appendix, Post- Reformation 
evidence, 125, 126. 



y Google 



V. 

BOWING AT THE NAME OF 
JESUS. 

IT has been sometimes assumed, that the 
ceremonies of the Church are, in their 
origin, character, and meaning, different from 
those which obtain in common life. Such a 
proposition cannot be maintained with any 
show of reason or truth. The fact is, that the 
ceremonies of the Church and those of every- 
day life are practically identical in character 
and meaning ; with this difference, that religious 
ceremonies have regard to sacred things, whilst 
the ceremonies of common life are concerned 
with secular things. The ceremonies of the 
Church have the same relation to those of 
private life, as revealed religion has to natural 
religion. We speak of revealed religion — in 
contra-distinction to natural religion — as super- 
natural; that is to say, as the adjective 
' supernatural ' implies, as built upon and 
developed out of merely natural religion. 
Supernatural religion is but natural religion 
purified, transformed, fulfilled. And the 
Church has in her wisdom acted on the same 
principle in the matter of her ceremonial 
observances, some of which are even pagan in 
their origin. 



y Google 



I02 Bowing at the Name of yesus. 

For example; it is almost universally ad- 
mitted that the Easter Festival derives its 
name from Eostre^ the Saxon goddess of the 
East, whose festival was celebrated in April, 
in which month the Christian Easter Day 
usually occurs. It is so derived by Bede.' 
The Festival of All Saints, similarly, had a 
pagan origin ; for it was suggested by Pope 
Boniface's action in the year 6io, or there- 
abouts, in dedicating the Pantheon, previously 
a heathen temple of all the gods, as the church 
of St. Mary and All Martyrs." Polydore 
Vergil declares that the Ember Fasts were 
received into the Church from the Romans, 
who made sacrifices in the three seasons called 
Vinalia^ Robigalia, and Floralia — the first for the 
vintage ; the second for fruits, of which the god 
was Rubigus, whose rites were performed on 
April 25th ; and the third for all flowers, over 

* ** Eostur-monath, qui nunc Paschalis mensis interpre- 
tatur, quondam a dea illorum (Anglorum populi) quae Eostre 
vocabatur, et cui in illo festa celebrabant, nomen babuit : a 
cujus nomine nunc Paschale tempus cognominant, consueto 
antiquse observationis vocabulo gaudia noyse solemnitatis 
vocantes." — Dg Temporum Ratione^ cap. xv. de mensibus 
Anglorum. 

» " Pope Boniface obtained a ^ant of the Pantheon from 
the Emperor Phocas : and dedicated it in honour of St. 
Mary and All Martyrs. This was on the i ith of May : and 
the feast of All Martyrs was kept on that day under the 
title of S. Maria ad Mariyres, Gregory IV. transferred it 
to Nov. 1st, because the harvest was then gathered in : and 
because the feast' of All Apostles being kept on May 1st, 
the other would answer to it half-yearly." — Neale and 
Webb, Trans, of Durandus' Rational^t p. 231, note. Leeds^ 
1843. 



y Google 



Bowing at the Name of Jesus. 103 

which the goddess Flora presided.^ " Hence it 
appears, that the early Roman pontiflFs cele- 
brated the same seasons of the year, not with 
an inane superstition, but with three fasts for 
the same reason — and thus converted the vain 
rites of the ancient heathen into the cultivation 
of true piety." » The Christian custom of wor- 
shipping towards the East is almost certainly 
borrowed from the old heathen sun-worship, 
with new and higher associations. "The 
manner of turning our faces to the East wheQ 
we pray, is taken from the old heathens, who, 
as Apuleius reminds us, used to look eastward 
and salute the sun. We use this custom to 
put ourselves in remembrance that Christ is 
the Sun of Righteousness, who discloses all 
secrets." 3 

And the Church has taken this bold line of 
transference, not only in regard to things dis- 
tinctly pagan, but also in regard to things 
secular. Not a few of our most cherished 
religious ceremonial-usages are borrowed from 
the customs which prevail in common life in 
the world. In the subject which we are about 
to discuss, namely, that of reverences or bow- 

I Dom Germain Morin has an excellent article on this 
origin in Revue BhUdictine^ 1897. Aodt, p. 337. 

' Polydore Vergil, De Invent, Rerum^ lib. vi. cap. 3, p. 
362. See Hampson, Medii ^vi Kalendarium^ Vol. ii. 
p. 113. 

3 Langley's Abridgement of Polydore Vergil^ p. 109, qu. 
Brand's Popular Antiquities^ Vol. ii. p. 317. Bohn. See 
S. Aug. De Sermone Domini in monte, ii. 5. 



y Google 



104 Bowing at the Name of Jesus. 

ingSy this is conspicuously the case. In common 
life, we bow as a token of respect, even to our 
intimate friends ; we bow more profoundly or 
bend the knee to our superiors. The Italians, 
who in the sixteenth century authoritatively 
introduced genuflection at the Consecration of 
the Eucharist, genuflect to a bishop.' Formerly 
they genuflected to the emperor. With them 
genuflection is used outside religion, and that 
is the origin of its use in religious worship. It 
is in both cases the same act dictated by a 
similar motive, namely, the motive of rever- 
ence.* Englishmen take o£f their hats wheq 
they enter a friend's house: they do the 
same on entering the house of God. The 
action is the same, in both cases; and it is 
dictated by the same motive, namely, that of 
showing respect. 

There are two occasions, and two only, on 
which the English Church, since the Reforma- 
tion, has directed the use of reverences (i) At 
the mention in divine service of the Holy 
Name ; (2) On entering and leaving a church, 
towards the altar. Of these we will now 



I '* R^ulariter quoties ipsi Canonid transeunt directe 
ante altare, vel ante Episcopum, caput, et humeros profunde 
indinant : beneficiati autem, et cseteri de dero genuflectere 
debent transeundo, tarn ante altare, quam ante Episcopum." 
— CaretnoniaU Episcoporum^ lib. i. cap. xviii. Paris, 1633. 

■ " Reverentia a Yerbo revereor^ est honoris alicui exhi- 
bitio, et quidem non Deo solum, sed et rebus sacris, ac 
hominibus etiam natu majoribus, ac dignitate."->Oitalani, 
Sacrarum Caremoniarum^ lib. 3, tit. I, Vol. ii. p. 329. 
Romse, 1751. 



y Google 



Bowing at the Name of ^esus. 105 

proceed to speak in this and in the following 
essay respectively. 

I. 

It is generally assumed, though without 
sufficent justification, that the origin of bowing 
at the mention of our Lord's human name, 
Jbsus, is to be traced to the words of St. Paul, 
'* at the name of Jesus every knee should bow." ' 
There is little doubt that these words had 
nothing to do with the origin of this reverent 
act of homage in question. The commonly 
received opinion, that they are the source from 
which the gesture of reverence at our Lord's 
human name is derived, is based on an im- 
perfect rendering of the original Greek* in the 
authorized version of the New Testament, 
which has been corrected in the revised version 
of 1885, in which we read, "in the name of 
Jesus every knee should bow." 3 Alford, in 

I Phil. ii. 10. 

■ The Greek is, h ry 6v6fMTi. The Latin Vulgate has, 
in nomine. 

3 Daniel Ncal, in his History of the Puritans^ Vol. i. p. 
195 ; VoL ii. p. 220. London, 1822, points out this mis- 
translation, in opposing the custom of bowing at the Holy 
Name. He says, '* Bowing at the name of Jesus, grounded 
upon a false interpretation of that passage of Scripture, At 
the name . . ." " The Puritans always excepted against 
bowing at the name of Jesus. . . • Nevertheless it was 
enjoined by the i8th canon, and in compliance with that 
injunction, our last translators inserted it into their text, by 
rendering h rtp dwofmn, in the name of fesus^ as it was 
before both in the Bible and Common Prayer-book, at the 
name of fesus^ as it now stands." Neal wrote his work 

1732-1738. 
Archbishop Laud, in 1637, replying to charges made against 



y Google 



io6 Bowing at the Name of Jesus. 

commenting on the passage, says, *^ that in the 
name of Jesus every knee should bend, i.e., all prayer 
should be made — ^not • at the name of Jesus 
every knee should bow,' which surely the 
words will not bear." It cannot be maintained 
that St. Paul is giving a command to bow the 
knee or the head at the mention of the Sacred 
Name. The words of St. Paul must be read 
in the light of those of the prophet Isaiah, of 
which they are a quotation : " Look unto me, 
and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth : for 
I am God, and there is none else. I have 
sworn by myself, That unto me every knee 
shall bow, every tongue shall swear."* The 

the bishops, referred to this same matter, thus — "The 8th 
Innovation charged upon them, was bowing at the name of 
Jesus, and altering to that end the words in the Epistle on 
the Sunday next before Easter, by changing ' in the name 
of Jesus,* to *«/ the name of Jesus.' And it was answered 
unto this. That bowing at the name of Jesus, was no innova- 
tion made by the prelates of this age, but required by the 
Injunction of Queen Elizabeth, in the very first beginning 
of the Reformation : And secondly. Though it be * in the 
name of Jesus,' in the old editions of the Liturgy ; yet it is 
* at the name of Jesus,' in the translation of Geneva, printed 
in the year 1567, and in the new translation authorised by 
King James. "—Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus^ Part ii. p. 58. 
Dublin, 17 19. See also Collier, Ecclesiastical History, Part 
ii. book ix. fol. 773, 775. Lond. 1708. 

The Cotremoniah Episcoporum (lib. ii. cap. 21), in the 
directions for Palm Sunday, has, "Cum subdiaconus in 
Epistola pronunciabit verba ilia, Ut in nomine fesu omne 
genu Jlectcttur, episcopus, et omnes usque ad terram genu- 
flectent, et permanent genuflexi usque ad ilia verba, Et 
infemorum, inclusive." Catalani attributes this usage to 
the pontificate of Gregory xiii., 1572-1585. See Sacraruvt 
Ccsremoniarum, lib. ii. tit i. cap. 39, § v. VoL ii. p. 1 5 1. 

z Isaiah xlv. 22, 23. 



y Google 



Bowing at the Name of yesus. 107 

source from which St. Paul's words are derived, 
as the context shows, points out that they refer 
to an universal acknowledgment in the future 
of Christ's supremacy, as God Incarnate — they 
contain a prophecy, rather than a precept. The 
passage is also patient of the meaning, that 
every created being should pray to God " in 
the name of Jesus.** It seems, then, that the 
only support which we can derive from St. 
PauPs words is, that they show that the custom 
of making an outward reverence at the mention 
of the Holy Name is not contrary to the spirit 
of the New Testament. We cannot fairly 
appeal to them as giving, either the origin of, 
or the authority for, the custom. Had St. 
Paul's words contained a command to pay 
external reverence at the mention of the Holy 
Name, it is quite impossible to believe that the 
Oriental Church could have disregarded so 
plain direction. Outward reverence in this 
matter is not paid in the Oriental Church. 

From this fact, we may reasonably conclude, 
that the gesture in question took its rise after 
the division between East and West, which 
took place in the ninth century. Daniel Neal, 
in his History of the Puritans,^ says, that bowing 

I Vol. iii. p. 175. Lond. 1822. Neal is evidently quoting 
Prynne, who, in his charge against archbishop Laud, at- 
tributed the authorization of the gesture to pope Gregory x., 
** who first introduced and prescribed it in Sexia Decrtta/ia, 
lib. 2. tit. 3. c. 2, from the popish councils of Basil, Sennes, 
Augusta, with others, which enjoin the use of it ; and from 
CosrtmoniaU Romanum^ lib. 2. c. 8. p. 206, which directs and 



y Google 



xo8 Bowing at the Name of Jesus. 

at the name of Jesus was not introduced before 
the time of Gregory X. (1271-1276), who first 
prescribed it; and that from the Councils of 
Basle» Sennes, and Augusta, it was afterward 
inserted in the Cofremoniale Episcoporum. Cor- 

pretcribes thus — Diaamus prosequitur Evangelium^ it cum 
profort ncmen, Jesu, vet Manx, incttnat se, sed profundius 
cum dicity Jesus ; quod et omnes faciunt,^^ — Canterbury s 
Doom, p. 64. London, 1646. 

From this quotation from the Cosremontate Episcoporum, 
two things are to be observed : (i) The bowing is ordered 
at the mention of the Holy Name in the Gospel. (2) The 
gesture is made, less prominently, at the mention of the 
name, Mary; which is the present rule according to the 
Roman rubrics. "Cum nominatur nomen Jesus, caput 
versus crucem inclinat : quod etiam £Acit cum nominatur in 
Epistola. Et similiter ubicunque nominatur nomen beatst 
Marise vel Sanctorum, de quibus didtur Missa, vel fit com- 
memoratio, item in Oratione pro Pap>a, quando nominatur, 
semper caput inclinat, non tamen versus crucem." — Ritus 
Celebrandi Missam. v. De Oratione, § 2. Missale Romanum, 
Venice, 17 13. The foregoing rubric is founded on earlier 
Roman directions. John Burchardt, in his Ordo Missa of 
1502, directs, ". . . . quotiescunque hoc nomen Jesus 
nominat caput Deo inclinat. Convenit etiam, quod cum 
nomen eloriosae virginis Mariae nominatur, caput ei in- 
clinetur." — p. 204 a, Venice, 1572. Paris de Crassus, in 
his De Cotremoniis Cardinatium et Episcoporum, which 
appeared at Rome in 1564, directs *'.... dumque nomen 
Jesu (non autem Christi solum) audit, detectum caput 
inclinat. Dum autem Maria matris Jesu, aut Papae tunc 
viventis proprium nomen audit, parum caput inclinat." — 
Lib. i. cap. xxii. p. 18^. Venice, 1582. 

In the Additions to the Rules of Syon Monastery 
(Aungier, Hist» attd Antiq. of Syon Monastery, p. 321. 
Lond. 1840), occurs, — *^ Sisters: They schal enclyne pro- 
foundly to the names of Jhesu and Maria, as oft as they 
shall here them pronounced. Brothers: To the names 
fkesu and Maria, they schal inclyne profoundly as often as 
they here them rehersyd." The author is indebted to Mr. 
Cuthbert Atchley for drawing his attention to this and other 
references quoted in this essay. 



y Google 



Bowing at the Name of Jesus. 109 

nelius k Lapide, in commenting on Philippians 
ii. 10, says, " Vide pia Gregorii verba hac de 
re apud Serarium, in c. 2. Josue qu. 15, quibus 
statuit ut ad nomen Jesu omnes flcctant genua 
cordis sui, quod vel capitis inclinatione testentur.**^ 
" Observe the devout words of Gregory con- 
cerning this matter, in which he ordained that 
at the name Jesus all bow the knees of the 
heart, or testify the same by an inclination of 
the head." 

There is, however, an earlier reference to the 
custom, namely, that contained in an indul- 
gence, granted by pope Urban IV. (1261-1264), 
of one hundred days of enjoined penance, to 
all who bowed devoutly as often as the name 
Jesus was mentioned in church. This is quoted 
in the Exeter Consuetudinary, and the later 
Sarum books." It seems highly probable that 
the custom arose in consequence of St. Ber- 
nard's great devotion to the Holy Name, in 
the twelfth century, and that its rapid spread 
was due to Urban's indulgence. Had the 
gesture been common previously, we should 



It is remarkable enough, that the mention of the custom 
of bowing at the name of Mary is half a century earlier than 
that of bowing at the name of Jesus. The Ancren Riwle^ 
which seems to have been written in the first quarter of the 
thirteenth century (Preface, xv.), directs the nuns to bow 
<' at Ave Maria, and wheresoever you hear Mary's name 
named." — The Ancren Riwle^ p. 19. Camden Soc. 

I Commentaria^ Antwerp, 1665. fol. 576. 

' See Chambers, Divine Worship in England^ p. 92. 
The author has not been able to verify Mr. Chambers'* 
references. 



y Google 



no Bowing at the Name of yesus, 

naturally have expected to find frequent al- 
lusions to it in the literature of the times. St. 
Bernard, who wrote so much that is beautiful 
concerning the Holy Name,* frequently 
mentions the bowing of the knee of the heart in 
the Holy Name, but, as is most remarkable, 
never alludes in any way to bowing the head. 
Had the latter custom been in vogue in his 
day, it is impossible to believe that he would 
not have referred to it frequently. The 
author has been unable to discover any allusion 
to the custom of bowing the head at the Holy 
Name, in St. Bernard's writings. 

In the year 1274, ten years after the death 
of pope Urban, the following Canon was 
decreed at the second Council of Lyons: "And 
that which is written concerning all, that * in 
the name of Jesus every knee should bow,' the 
same let each for his own part fulfil in himself, 
especially when the Holy Mysteries of the 
Eucharist are being celebrated, by bowing the 
knees of his heart at every mention of that 
glorious name, and in witness thereof, at least 
inclining his head." * 

This Canon is important: it lays stress 
on bowing the knees of the heart, at the 
mention of the Holy Name during the cele- 

I e.g., the hymn ** Jesu, dulcis memoria." 
■ qu. Keble, Eucharislical Adoration^ 3rd ed. ch. ii. 
pp. 25, 26. See also Scudamore, Notitia Eucharisiica^ 
2nd ed. p. 278, where reference is given. Const, xxv. 
Labb. torn xi. P. i. col. 990. 



y Google 



Bowing at the Name of yesus. iii 

bration of the Eucharist— of which more 
hereafter; and St. Paul's words, in Phil, ii* 
ID, are referred to the bowing of the knees 
of the heart, as is usual ; the bowing of the 
head being regarded as a subsidiary outward 
token of inward reverence, and not as the 
important matter to be considered. Pope 
John XXII. (1316-1334) confirmed the indul- 
gence granted by Urban IV.,' according to the 
Exeter and the Sarum books, which seem to 
show that the custom was still far from general. 
Had it been at all widespread, there would 
have been no occasion to encourage it by 
means of an indulgence. Canon 4 of the 
Council of Avignon in the year 1324, and also 
a Canon of the Council of Besiers in the year 
1 35 1, granted an indulgence of ten days to all 
shriven and truly penitent persons who bowed 
their heads at the mention of the Holy Name.* 
In the same year (1351) a similar indulgence 
of ten days was granted, at a provincial council 
held at Dublin, to all clergy and laity who 
inclined their minds, heads, and bodies, de- 
voutly whenever they heard the name of Jesus 
in church, whether they were in choir or 
elsewhere, and humbly bowed themselves to 
God. This important constitution is as follows : 

' " Johannes vero vigesimus secundus uncentos dies verae 
indulgentise omnibus qui ad Jesu genua flecterent, vel caput 
inclinerent, vel tunderent pectus, largitus «st." — ^Alfonsi 
Salmeronis Toletani e Soc. Jesu Theologi Commcntarii. 
Colonige Agrippinse, 1604. t. iii. p. 335. 
" '«, p. 278. 



y Google 



' See Notitia Eucharistica. 



112 Bowing at the Name of yesus. 

** D$ adorando nomine ^esu. Cumque dicatur per 
apostolum ut in nomine Domini J. C. omne 
genu flectatur coelestium, terrestrium, et in« 
fernorum, quum pium et fructuosum esse 
censemuSy quod Christi fideles cum ipsum 
sanctum nomen ipsorum auribus insonuerit, 
Deo inclinent devotius cor et caput, consen- 
tiente eodem concilio, monemus et hortamur 
in Domine subditos nostrae provinciae Dublin, 
quod omnibus et singulis ecclesiis per nostras 
dioecisin et provinciam divina officia quoties- 
cunque celebrantes et audientes, tarn cleric! 
cujuscunque status quam laici, tam in chore 
quam alibi in ecclesia, audito eo sanctissimo 
nomine Jesu mentem, caput, et corpus devo- 
tissime inclinent, et humillime Deo flectant^ et 
ut eo ferventius et perseverantius in isto sacro 
proposito perseverent, qui sunt mercedem 
spiritualem a Domino accepturi, singulis sub- 
ditis dioecesis et provinciae praedictae, vera 
de peccatis suis confessis, et contritis, in dictis 
choris et ecclesiis cum ipsum sanctissimum et 
dulcissimum nomen Jesu inter missarum, et 
aliorum divinorum officiorum solennia audie- 
rint, humiliter sic inclinantibus, decem dies 
indulgentiae, viz., qualibet die dominica, et 
aliis festis per circulum anni duplicibus de 
omnipotentis Dei misericordia confidentes 
misericorditer elargimur." ' 

** Since it is said by the apostle that in the 
name of the Lord Jesus Christ every knee 

> Wilkins, Concilia^ iii. 20. 



y Google 



Bowing at the Name of yesus, 113 

should bow, of things in heaven, and things in 
earth, and things under the earth, as we 
consider it a holy and fruitful thing that 
Christ's faithful people should more devoutly 
incline both heart and head to God when that 
holy name sounds in their ears ; we instruct 
and exhort our subjects of the province of 
Dublin, with the consent of the same Council, 
that in each and every church throughout our 
diocese and province, those who celebrate and 
hear divine service, both clergy of whatso- 
ever degree and laity, not only in choir but 
also elsewhere in church, as often as they 
hear that most holy name, shall with all 
devotion and humility incline and bend their 
mind, head, and body to God; and in order 
that they may so much the more fervently 
and strenuously persevere in that holy inten- 
tion, as being those who are about to receive 
a spiritual reward from the Lord ; we, by the 
mercy of Almighty God, graciously and con- 
fidently grant ten days of indulgence, namely, 
on every Lord's day and on other double feasts 
through the circle of the year, to all our 
subjects of the diocese and province aforesaid, 
who having confessed their sins in a true state 
of contrition, thus humbly bow themselves 
when they hear that holiest and sweetest name 
of Jesus, during the solemnities of the Mass 
and other divine offices in the said choirs and 
churches." 
Abulensis, a distinguished medieval com- 



y Google 



114 Bowing at the Name of Jesus, 

mentator, says, *< Ecclesiae communis et lauda* 
bills consuetudo magis honorat istud nomen, 
Jesus, quam nomen Deus. Unde audito 
nomine, Jesus, devoti fideles aut caput in- 
clinant, aut genua flectunt ; quod non faciunt 
audito nomine, Deus." ' '* There is a common 
and laudable custom of the Church, whereby 
the name Jesus is even more honoured than 
the name God. For which cause, when the 
name of Jesus is heard, the faithful people 
either bow the head or bend the knees ; which 
they do not on hearing the name of God." 

Catharinus, sometime archbishop of Conza 
(1487-1553), apparently refers to the indulgence 
of pope John XXII., in his commentary on 
the Epistle to the Romans, in which occurs : 
'' Exstat justissimum pontificis decretum, quo 
mandatur, ut ad hoc nomen Jesus omnes 
inclinarent caput."" "There is a most just 
decree of the pope, wherein it is ordered 
that all incline the head at this name Jesus." 
In Taverner's Postils^ published in the year 
1540, in reference to Phil. ii. 10, we find, 
*«Nowe by the bowing downe of every knee, 
is ment the submission and mekenyng of al 
creatures to theyr maker, not that e3rther 
angels or dyvels have bodely knees, but 
bycause we men that have bodyes, in our 
submission and humbeling of our selves do 

I qu. Cornelius ^ Lapide, in Phil. ii. 10. fol. 575. 
' Catharin, in c. ^ episL ad Roman, , qu. Cornelius k 
Lapide, in Phil. ii. 10. fol. 576. 



y Google 



Bowing at the Name of Jesus. 115 

bow our knees." » In the year 1549, a council 
at Mainz ordered, '*cum ad venerabile et 
tremendum nomen Jesu deveniret, caput aperit, 
inclinatur." « "When we shall come to the 
venerable and tremendous name Jesus, the 
head is uncovered and inclined." 

In the year 1558 the bishop of Worcester, 
as commissioner of Cardinal Pole, enjoined in 
the cathedral of Hereford, that at the naming 
of Jesus in singing or saying, every man should 
give token of reverence with vailing (removing?) 
their bonnets and bending their knees.3 

Thomas Becon, one of archbishop Cramner's 
chaplains, when in exile in Queen Mary's reign, 
wrote his famous Displaying of the Popish Mass; 
in which he says, " When the Gospel is read . . . 
the people stand up and make courtesy when 
they hear the name of Jesus." * It seems that 
this reverence was paid only at the mention 
of the Holy Name in the Gospel of the Mass, 
in Becon's time. Fulke, in his controversy 
with Martiall, published in 1580, said, "But 
Martiall thinketh, that as our ears call upon 
us to bow our knees at the name of Jesus, so 
do the eyes at the sight of the crucifix. But 
he must understand, that we worship not the 
sound of the name of Jesus, rebounding in the 

X Epistle on Palm Sunday, p. 166. Oxford, 184 1. 

' ConciL Moguntinum § 2, Codices, qu. Cornel. 1 Lap. in 
Phil. ii. 10. fol. 576. 

3 See Walcott, Sacred Archaology^ p. 79. The author 
has been unable to discover the exact reference here. 

* Works^ iii. p. 264. Parker Soc 



y Google 



ii6 Bowing at the Name of Jesus. 

air ; but the power, the majesty, and authority 
of Jesus, we acknowledge and honour: not 
called upon by the sound of the name of Jesus, 
but by the voice of the Gospel.** * 

II. 
In the year 1559, shortly after Queen 
Elizabeth ascended the throne, she issued 
a set of Injunctions, the fifty-second of which 
directs, *'that whensoever the name of Jesus 
shall be in any lesson, sermon, or otherwise in 
the church pronounced, that due reverence be 
made of all persons young and old, with 
lowness of courtesy, and uncovering of heads 
of the menkind, as thereunto doth necessarily 
belong, and heretofore hath been accustomed.*' ' 

* Fulke's Answers^ Art. x. p. 204. Parker Soc. 

« Cardwell, Doc. Annals ^ i. p. 231. It was partly in 
consequence of the enforcement of this order upon the 
Puritans that a great storm arose, as the literature of the 
time abundantly shows. Neal states, that " no penalty was 
annexed to the neglect of the ceremony, nor did any suffer 
for it, till bishop I^ud was at the head of the Church, who 
pressed it equally with the rest, and caused about twenty 
ministers to be fined, censured, and put by their livings, for 
not bowing at the name of Jesus, or for preaching against 
it." — Hist, of Puritans^ ii. p. 221. Neal gives as his 
authority for this statement. Usurpation of Prtlaies^ p. 165. 

"On June 3, 1629, Henry Burton, rector of St. Matthew, 
Friday Street, is ' charged with not bowing his head at the 
text in a funeral sermon preached by him there, the text 
being, Come^ Lord Jesus, etc. In the sermon he said we 
were growing so idolatrous and fallen into such superstition, 
that it was a wonder that those who were zealous m religion 
did not like Phynieas draw their swords . . .' Accordingly 
Henry is suspended on June 18, but on July 14 his suspension 
is relaxed." — Hennessy, Notes on the Ecclesiastical Registers 
of London, St. Paul's Eccles. Soc. Trans. Vol. iv. p. 335. 



y Google 



Bowing at the Name of Jesus. 117 

George Withers, writing to the Prince Elector 
Palatine, about 1560, informs him that, "at 
the pronouncing of the name of Jesus, they 
(Queen Elizabeth and Archbishop Parker) have 
ordered all persons to take o£f their hats and 
bow their knees." ' Cartwright tells us in his 
Admonition » that, " when Jesus is named, then 
oflf goeth the cap, and down goeth the knees, 
with such a scraping on the ground that they 
cannot hear a good while after; so that the 
word is hindered ; but, when any other names 
of God are mentioned, they make no curtesy 
at all ; as though the names of God were not 
equal." Archbishop Whitgift, in defending the 
custom, says, ** One reason, that moved Chris- 
tians in the beginning the rather to bow at the 
name of Jesus than at any other name of God, 
was because this name was most hated and 
most contemned of the wicked Jews, and other 
persecutors of such as professed the name of 
Jesus ; for the other names of God they had in 
reverence, but this they could not abide; 
wherefore the Christians, to signify their faith 
in Jesus, and their obedience unto him, and to 
confute by open gesture the wicked opinion 
of the Jews and other infidels, used to do bodily 
reverence at all times when they heard the 
name of Jesus, but especially when the Gospel 
was read, which contained that glad tidings of 
salvation which is procured unto man by Christ 

z Zurich Letters, Second Series, Ixii. p. i6i. Parker Soc 
» See Whitgift's IVorks, iii. p. 384. Parker Soc. 



y Google 



ii8 Bowing at the Name of Jesuz, 

Jesus ; whereupon also he is called Jesus, that 

is, a Saviour." * 

It will be observed that Whitgift refers to 

the reverence made "especially when the 

Gospel is read." Bishop Montagu, in his 

visitation articles of 1638 makes the same 

distinction, in asking, ** Do your parishioners 

bend or bow at the glorious, sacred, and sweet 

name of Jesus, pronounced out of the Gospel 

read?"* Bishop Andrewes has a similar 

question, " In the reading the holy Gospel, and 

never else, is adoration made at the name of 

Jesus ; for then only is it in its right exaltation ; 

and then men stand in a posture ready to make 

reverence." 3 These last words of Bishop 

Andrewes appear to give or suggest a good 

reason why a reverence at the Holy Name 

was to be made only at the liturgical Gospel. 

At all other readings of the Scripture, it 

is assumed that people are sitting, and so 

not in the posture to bow the knee. In 

all other parts of the Church service, the 

Creeds excepted, in which the Holy Name 

occurs, the people are kneeling, which is in 

itself a posture of adoration and reverence.^ 

We seem here to have the reason why the 

custom of bowing at the Holy Name in the 

Creeds is almost universally observed, and that 

* Whitgift*s Works^ iii. p. 390. Parker Soc. 
■ Tit. V. 14. 2nd Reporty Rit, Com, 
3 Minor Works y p. 152. Lib. Anglo-Cath. Theol. 
< See the question of Bp. Morley, and other bishops, 
p. 124. 



y Google 



Bowing at the Name of Jesus. 119 

too in a very marked way.' Another reason 
for the prevalence of the gesture during the 
recitation of the Creeds is, that in them 
Christians make with their mouths an act of 
faith in Jesus Christ, which is emphasised by 
an external act of reverence. Dr. Bisse, how- 
ever, in defending the custom in question, says, 
in reference to the wording of Elizabeth's 
Injunction of 1559 — " uncovering of heads of the 
menkind,** and "with lowness of courtesy" in 
women — "But which way soever this rever- 
ence be expressed, by men and women, whether 
the former by bowing the head, the latter the 
knee, when standing; or both by bowing the 
body, when kneeling or sitting, as it is now 
accustomed; yet the reason is still one and 
the same, profitable and holy, which is the due 
acknowledgment, that Jesus is the Lord,^^ ' 

But to go back from this digression, in the 
order of time: In 1561, Davies, Bishop of St. 
Asaph, issued the injunction, " That in time of 
service read or sung in the church, so often as 
the name of Jesus, being our Saviour, shall be 
rehearsed and pronounced, due reverence be 
made of all persons young and old with lowli- 
ness of courtesy, and entending of men's 
heads." 3 This is in accordance with Queen 
Elizabeth's injunction of 1559. 

* See British Magaxiney 1841, Vol. xix. p. 66, 
■ The Beauty of Holiness, Decency and Order in 
Publick Worship, p. 65. Lond. 1723. 
3 Wilkins, Conctliay iv. p. 229. 



y Google 



I20 Bowing at the Name of Jesus. 

In 1566, Beza complained of it, as a 
grievance in the English Church, that people 
were expected to stand up at the name of 
Jesus — ** That there should be no standing up 
at the name of Jesus." < Possibly this custom 
of standing up was in order that people might 
be in a suitable posture for bowing the knee : 
possibly Beza did not quite understand what 
the English did. 

The State regulation of 1559, previously 
referred to, was formally established by the 
Church in 1604. In the Canons set forth in 
that year, the eighteenth canon directs, that 
**when in time of divine service the Lord 
Jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly 
reverence shall be done by all persons present, 
as it hath been accustomed ; testifying by this 
outward gesture, their due acknowledgment 
that the Lord Jesus Christ, the true and 
eternal Son of God, is the only Saviour of the 
world." « 

X Zurich Letters, Second Series, liii. p. 134, Parker Soc. 

• Cardwell, Synodalia, Vol. i. p. 255. This canon was 
reconsidered and re-imposed by Convocation in 1662. In 
May of that year, " in accordance with the request of the 
Commons, the bishops and the other members of Convocation 
were desired to prepare a canon on the gestures to be used in 
the time of divine service. The subject was discussed on 
the loth of May, in the upper house, when it was decided 
that the canon of 1604, under the title of Solemn reverence 
during the celebration of divine service^ should be considered 
by the lower house ; and on the 12th of May, the canon, 
being the eighteenth of those of 1604, was approved and 
confirmed." — Lathbury, Hist, of ConvocaHon^ p. 295. See 
also Kennet's Re^ster, 671, 680; Syn, Ang. iii. 113; 
\^^lkins, Concilia^ iv. 575. 



y Google 



Bowing at the Name of yesus. 121 

It is to be noticed that in this Canon, as 
also in £lizabeth*s Injunction of 1559, upon 
which it is founded, no allusion is made to 
St. Paul's words in Philippians ii. 10, as giving 
authority for the custom. In both directions 
we are referred, not to any Scriptural authority, 
but to an accustomed usage of the English 
Church : the reverence is to be made in accord- 
ance with ancient precedent.' Hooker makes 
a similar reference to old custom in defending 
the gesture. He says, "Now because the 
Gospels which are weekly read do all histori- 
cally declare something which our Lord Jesus 
Christ himself either spake, did, or suffered, in 
his own person, it hath been the custom of 
Christian men then especially, in token of the 
greater reverence, to stand, to utter certain 
words of acclamation, and at the name of Jesus 
to bow. Which harmless ceremonies as there 
is no man constrained to use; so we know no 
reason wherefore any man should yet imagine 
it an unsufferable evil." « The Fifth Book of 

I Heylyn, referring to Elizabeth's Injunction of 1559, 
sa^s, " Though this injunction was published the first year 
ot the Queen, yet then this bowing at the name of Jesus was 
lookt on as an ancient custom ; not only used in Queen 
Mary's reign, but also in King Edward's time, and in those 
before. And in this case, and in all bthers of that nature, 
it is a good and certain rule, that aU such rites as had been 
practised in the Church of Rome, and not abolisht, nor 
disclaimed by any doctrine, law or canon of the first 
Reformers, were to continue in the same state in which 
thev found them. ^^ —Cyprianus Anglicus^ Introd. xix. 
Dublin, 1 7 19. 

» Eccles. Pol, V. 30, § 3. 7th ed. Oxford, 1888. 



y Google 



122 Bowing at the Name of yesus. 

Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity^ from which the 
foregoing words are quoted, was published in 
1597, that is some six years before the 
eighteenth Canon of 1604 was issued. From 
his words we gather, that the stringent en* 
forcement of the Injunction of 1559 was being 
very greatly relaxed. A similar relaxing of 
the force of the Canon of 1604 was made in the 
year 1660 by Charles II., who put forth a 
declaration, that << No man shall be compelled 
to bow at the name of Jesus, or suffer in any 
degree for not doing it, without reproaching 
those who out of their devotion continue that 
ancient ceremony of the .Church."' The 
directions of Canon 18 of 1604 seem to have 
been generally acquiesced in, so far, at least, 
as that the Presbyterian divines in the Savoy 
Conference of 166 1 made no mention of bowing 
at the Sacred Name, as one of the points which 
disturbed men's minds in regard to the Prayer 
Book. 

As evidence of the Church's requirement in 
1641 ; on Sept. 8th of that year, the Commons 
ordered, that ''all corporal bowing at the 
name yesus^ or towards the Communion table^ 
be forborne." " 



I Cardwell, Hist. tfConfir. p. 296. 

' See Robertson, How shall wt conform to th$ Liturgy f 
3rd ed. p. lao. Walker*! Sufforings of th$ Clorgy^ part i. 
p. 24. I^nd. 1 7 14. 



y Google 



Bowing at the Name of Jesus* 123 

III. 

In the visitation articles of the seventeenth 
century, we find frequent allusion to the 
custom of showing external reverence at the 
mention of the Sacred Name ; as the following 
enquiries testify. 

Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury; a.d. 1616. 
** Whether any of your parishioners do not 
reverently behave themselves during the time 
of divine service • • • using all due and lowly 
reverence, when the blesed name of the Lord 
Jesus Christ is mentioned ? " 

The same enquiry was made verbatim by 
Laud, as bishop of St. David's, in 1622: as 
metropolitan — at Norwich, in 1635 ; at 
Winchester, in 1635; at Lincoln, in 1638: 
also by Andrewes, bishop of Winchester, in 
1625 ; and by Williams, bishop of Lincoln, in 

1635- 
Curie, bishop of Winchester; a.d. 1633. 

"Whether is that due reverence and humble 
submission used within your church or chapel 
in the time of divine service, as by the i8th 
Canon is prescribed ? " 

Wren, bishop of Norwich; a.d. 1636. " Do 
all use due and lowly reverence, when the 
blessed name of the Lord Jesus is men- 
tioned ? " 

Montagu, bishop of Norwich; a.d. 1638. 
« Do your parishioners bend or bow at the 
glorious, sacred, and sweet name of Jesus, 
pronounced out of the Gospel read ? " 



y Google 



124 Bowing at the Name of Jfesus. 

Juxon, bishop of London; a.d. 1640. 
''When and as often as in the time of 
divine service the Lord Jesus shall be men- 
tioned, is due and lowly reverence done by 
all persons present ? " 

Cosin, bishop of Durham ; a.d. 1662. '' Doth 
every person stand up when the Gospel is read, 
making due reverence when the name of our 
Lord Jesus is mentioned ? ** 

Morley, bishop of Winchester; a.d. 1662. 
** Doth every person stand up when the Creed 
and Gospel are read, making due reverence 
when the name of our Lord Jesus is men- 
tioned ? " 

Bishop Morley's question is repeated in 
visitation articles of various bishops in the 
years, 1663, 1666, 1671, 1672, 1674, 1676, 1677, 
1679, 2tnd 1683. — See Appendix E, to the Second 
Report of the Royal Commission on Ritual, p. 
615. From this Report all the foregoing en- 
quiries are quoted. 



y Google 



Bowing at the Name of Jfesus. 125 



APPENDIX. 



The following post-Reformation evidence, may be added 
to that given in the preceding pages. 

** Q. IVhy do we bow at the name ^ Jesus ? 

" J[. The mentioning of the name of Jesus, puts us in 
mind of him we owe all manner of reverence to, which we 
express by bowing. Bishop Stillingfleet." A Plain and 
Rational Vindication and Explanation of the Liturgy of the 
Church of England collected out of the Discourses of some of 
the Reverend Bishops and Doctors of the same Church by 
way of Question and Answer, By J. Clutterbuck, Gent. 
3rd. Ed. London 1702, p. 19. 

'* There is a general practice in our churches of bowing 
here (the Apostles' Creed) at the mention of the name of 
Jesus. I do not mean to censure any custom which is 
intended to express veneration for our Saviour; but the 
practice is founded on a passage of St. Paul too literally 
understood. ... At present it is customary to do 
reverence, when the name of Jesus is mentioned in this and 
in the Nicene Creed." — Shepherd on the Book of Common 
Prayer, vol. i. p. 249 (1828 ed.). 

"The Code of Canons of the Episcopal Church in 
Scotland as revised, amended, and enacted, . . . in . . . 
1838." Edin. 1844. pp. 34, 35. 

"Canon XXIX. Enjoining all due Reverence and At- 
tention in time of Divine Service" 

"In time of Divine Service the most devout attention 
shall be given by the people to what is read, preached, or 
ministered. And that they may glorify God in body as well 
as in spirit, agreeably to what an apostle enjoins, they shall 
humbly kneel when the General Confession, the Litany, 
and other Prayers are read, making the appointed Responses 
with an audible voice, in a grave and serious manner; and 
shall reverently stand up at the repetition of the Creed, and 
at the reading or singing of the Psalms, Hymns, or 
Anthems, bowing devoutly at the name of Jesus in the 
Creed.'' 



y Google 



126 Bowing at the Name of Jesus, 

**Code of Canons of the Episcopal Church in Scotland 
. . . 1876." Edin. 1876. p. 31. 

** Canon XXXIII. 0/ the due care of churches ; of 
reverent behaviour and attention in time of Divine 
Service,^* 

" § 2. All persons attending Divine Service shall bow . 
devoutly at the name of Tesus, especially in the Creeds.'* 
(Same as in the Canons of 1863.) 

'' Code of Canons of the Episcopal Church in Scotland 
. . . 1890." Edin. 189a (Now in force.) 

•* Canon XXXV. Of Divine Service:' 

" § 5. All persons attending Divine Service shall show 
the accustomed reverence at the mention of the Name of 
Jesus, especially in the Creeds.'* 



y Google 



Bowiitfl towart>0 tbe altar. 



yGoogle 



Bowing at the Holy Name and towards the altar, 
alike authorised by the English Church, pp, 129, 130. 
R6sum6 of the evidence in favour of bowing towards 
the altar, from Bp. Jeremy Taylor, pp. 130—133. 
Later evidence in the Roman Church, pp. 133 — 135. 
The Sarum cnstom, pp. 135, 136. The testimony 
of Heyl)m in 1560, pp. 136 — 138. The canons of 
1640, pp. 138, 139. The seventh canon of 1640, 
pp. 139 — 143. Post- Reformation testimony to the 
lawfulness and continuance of the practice, pp. 
143 — 144. The usefulness of the practice, p. 144. 



y Google 



VI. 
BOWING TOWARDS THE ALTAR. 

IT will probably come as a matter of surprise 
to many people to hear that, historically 
speaking, there is greater authority from 
ancient precedent for bowing towards the 
altar, than there is for bowing at the Holy 
Name. Whilst the latter custom does not 
appear to have been introduced until the 
thirteenth century, the former custom is very 
ancient indeed ; and, moreover, it is a custom 
common to East and West, whilst bowing at 
the Holy Name is confined to the West. 
Hence, comparatively speaking, the practice 
of bowing towards the altar is more Catholic, 
than the practice of showing external reverence 
at the mention of the Holy Name. From the 
point of view of an English churchman, both 
practices are equally authorized. There is, there- 
fore, an inconsistency in showing reverence 
when the Holy Name is mentioned in the 
services of the Church, whilst neglecting the 
prescribed reverence made towards the altar 
on entering and on leaving a church. The 
reason for this inconsistency, which is quite 
common, is, that, in nine cases out of ten, 
persons who bow at the Holy Name con- 



y Google 



130 Bowing towards the Altar. 

eider that they are acting in obedience to St. 
Paul's words, recorded in Phil. ii. 10. In the 
previous essay, we have pointed out the mistake 
under which such persons are labouring. St. 
Paul's words cannot, without doing violence to 
their literal meaning, be taken as giving a 
command to show external reverence at the 
mention of the Sacred Name. The external 
reverence is in accord with St. Paul's words, 
and nothing more. Both the reverences 
referred to, rest upon the authority of the 
Church ; and as English churchpeople we find 
their authorization in the Canons of the years 
1604 and 1640 respectively. 

I. 

Bishop Jeremy Taylor, in his treatise On the 
Reverence due to the Altar ^ written about the year 
1637,* has collected much evidence from early 
times concerning the ceremony under consider- 
ation, which we proceed to quote. 

"We find, in old writers of repute, such 
expressions as the following : < saluting the 
holy table ; ' « * the altar of God is to be bended 
to with the knee;' 3 St. Gregory Nazianzen 
speaks of his sister, * falling down with faith 

' The treatise is printed in Vol. v. pp. 315-338, of Bp. 
Jeremy Taylor's Works ^ edited by Eden, 1849. It has 
recently been reprinted, with notes by the author of the 
present work, published by A. R. Mowbray & Co., Oxford, 

1899. 
" Dionys. EccUs, Hier, lib. 11. 
3 "ArisDeiadgeniculari. . . ." — TertuLi?^ /'<r«//.cap.ix. 



y Google 



Bowing towards the Altar ^ 131 

before the altar/ and < bowing her head to the 
altar; *^ the same writer gives a command, 
• Reverence the mysterious table ; * * St. Atha- 
nasius speaks of 'going towards the holy 
altar, embracing it, and saluting it ; ' 3 Socrates 
relates that the Bishop of Alexandria, * entering 
into the sept of the altar, and prostrating him- 
self at the foot of, or under, the holy table, 
prayed, lying flat on his face;' St. Jerome ^ 
reproves one, Sabinianus, for laying love- 
letters by the altar, at a place where a maiden 
whom he loved came to bend the knee in 
adoration, thus showing plainly what was the 
practice of the faithful in his time ; Prudentius 
describes the preparation of a Christian captain 
and his comrade for battle, telling how they 
would first adore God at His holy altar, and 
then go forth to fight.s * Take heed, brethren, 
that first of all we worship the holy altar,* said 
the Council of Constantinople.^ St. Ambrose 
has the words, 'bowing the loftiness of the 
head (or, the loftiest head) to the altar.' 7 

«* It was the complaint of Salvian,^ that to 
approach the altar without reverence or vener- 
ation, was disgraceful ; 9 to treat the altar with 

X De Soror, Gorgon, orat. xi. ' Idem. orat. xl. 

3 torn. ii. Quod dua in Christo natura^ p. 304, ed. 
Paris, 1627. * 48. ad Sabinianum, 

5 ** At the adoration of His altars, and the signing of the 
brow with the cross, the trumpets rang out." — lib. iL contra 
Symmachum, 

« Fifth Gen. Cone, sub Mennd^ act 5. 

7 lib. i. De Virgin, ^ lib, iiL p. 93. 

9 " Sordidus et flagitiosus." 



y Google 



132 Bowing towards the Altar, 

contempt, is named by Damascene* as the 
custom of heretics; Synesius* blamed himself 
greatly for daring, as a sinner, to touch the 
altar; St. Chrysostom expresses the reason 
why reverence is due to the altar in the words, 
'thou dost reverence or honour the altar, 
because it is the seat of the Body of Christ.' 3 

**Inthe rubrics of St. Chrysostom's Liturgy* 
nothing is more common than to find such 
words as, 'they shall make three adorations 
towards the east ; ' * standing before the holy 
table, they shall worship ; ' * bending the head 
before the holy table.' Similar directions are 
frequent in the old Latin offices — ^in the Ordo 
Romanus.s almost ever3nvhere, e.g., * the priest 
having inclined his head to the altar ; ' * bow- 
ing himself to the altar ; ' and similar evidence 
is afforded by the old Latin Mass, which is 
confessedly a thousand years old, and has been 
quoted in proof of the omissions and additions 
found in later Missals. But it would be weari- 
some, to writer and to reader alike, to quote 
one-tenth part of the instances which abound 
in the ancient liturgies, and specially in the 
famous Mozarabic Missal. The abundant 

I De Hares, § 80, torn. i. p. 97. B. » epist. 67. 

3 horn. xxi. in 2 Cor. cap. x. 

* passim, torn. xii. p. 776, sqq. 

s e.g. Ordo Romanus ii. 5. " Subdiaconi usque ad altare 
progredientes, simul se inclinant coram eo." — Mabillon, 
Museum Italicum, Vol. ii. p. 44. "In hoc honorabili 
ministerio debet pontifex yenire in tribunal ecclesise, et 
inclinare caput contra altare." — Ordo Romanus iii. 8. Ibid. 
PP- 55, 56. 



y Google 



Bowing towards the Altar. 133 

evidence bearing upon the practice of the 
primitive Church is more than enough to make 
plain how, formerly, the churches were re- 
garded and the altars approached." ^ 

Christopher Marcellus, writing in the year 
15 16, says, dc Reverentia Altaris — ** Accedens 
primum ad ecclesiam, sive capellam, pontifex 
genuflectit ante altare super faldistorium, et 
capite detect© orat. Cardinales, prselati, et alii 
omnes, tarn clerici quam laici similiter primum 
intrantes genuflectunt in terram, orantque. 
Pontifex surgens ab oratione cum mitra 
veneratur altare, caput inclinando, antequam 
inde discedat. Cardinales quotiens vadunt 
versus altare, vel ante illud transeunt, profunde 
caput inclinant altari. Alii omnes, tarn episcopi, 
quam clerici, sive laici transeuntes ante altare 
genuflectunt." ^ 

** When first he goes to the church or chapel, 
the pope kneels at the faldstool before the altar, 
and prays with his head uncovered. The car- 
dinals, prelates and all others, both, clergy and 
laity in like manner, when they first go into the 
church, kneel on the ground and pray. The 
pope rising from prayer, with his mitre, makes 
a reverence to the altar by inclining his head, 
before he goes away from before it. As often 

I The foregoing quotations, commencing on p. 130, of this 
essay, are taken from the author's edition of Bishop Taylor's 
treatise, referred to in note i, page 130. 

» Rituum Ecclestasticorum sive Sacrarum CaremofUarum 
Sancta Romance Ecdcsia^ lib. iii. sec. i. c. i. fol. cxx. 
Venice, 15 16. 



y Google 



134 Bowing towards the Altar. 

as the cardinals go towards the altar or pass in 
front of it, they make a profound inclination to 
It. All others, whether bishops, clergy or laityi 
genuflect when passing before the altar.** 

Paris de Crassus, whose dc Cosremoniis Car- 
dinalium et Episcoporum, was published at Rome 
in 1564, says, " Cseterum omnes cujuscunque 
conditionis, et ordinis, qui ante altare per- 
transeunt, genuflectere quidem ante crucem 
altaris deberent ; sed satis ex inveterate more 
facient, si profunde inclinabunt.** » " All others 
of whatever condition, and order, who pass 
before the altar, ought to kneel before the altar- 
cross ; but by immemorial custom it is sufficient 
if they incline profoundly.** 

In the Roman Missal of 1580, we find, under 
Ritus cehhrandi Missam : De ingressu sacerdotis 
ad altare — "Sacerdos, si vero contigerit eum 
transire ante altare majus, capite cooperto, 
faciat ad illud reverentiam. . . . Cum per- 
venerit ad altare, stans ante illud in infimo 
gradu, . . . altari, sen imagine Crucifixi 
desuper posito, profunde inclinat.**" **The 
priest, if he happen to pass before the 
high altar, shall make a reverence to it with 
his head covered. . . . When he has reached 
the altar [i.e., the altar at which he is about to 
celebrate], standing before it on the lowest 
step, he shall incline profoundly to it, or to the 
image of the Crucified set above it.** 

» Lib. i. cap. xxii. fol. 193. Venice, 1582. 

" Atissale Romanum^ Venetiis, apud Juntas. 1580. 



y Google 



Bowing towards the Altar. 135 

Other similar directions for bowing towards 
the altar abound in the rubrics of the MissaU 
Romanuntf and also in the Caremoniah Epis- 
coporum.^ 

At Sarum, the clergy bowed towards the 
altar on entering and on leaving the church, as 
also in crossing the choir. *' Chorum intrantes 
clerici ita ordinate se habeant, ut si ex parte 
orientali intraverint, ad gradum chori se ad 
altare inclinent ; postea ad episcopum, si presens 
fuerit. Si vero ex parte occidentali ingressi 
fuerint, primo ad altare se inclinenti deinde 
ad decanum. Eodem moderamine chorum 
exeant. • • • Preterea si quis clericus ab una 
parte chori in oppositam transierit, in eundo 
et redeundo ad altare se inclinet." ' 

" The clergy should enter the choir in such 
order that, if they enter it from the east, they 
may incline to the altar at the step ; and then 
to the bishop, if he be present. But if they 



I e.g. ''Ante altare majus, episcopus caput cruci profunde 
inclinabit."~Lib. i. cap. xii. p. 6'j, Paris, 1633. " Diaconus 
celebraturus cum ministris, et facta reverentia altari cum 
genuflexione, si ibi aderit sanctissimum Sacramentum, sin 
minus, cum profunda capitis inclinatione." — Lib. ii cap. 
xvii. p. 257. 

^ Ihe Use of SaruMy Frere. I. pp. 14, 16. dc ingressu et 
egressu clericorum : de transitu clericorum ab una parte 
chori in oppositam. 

In the CeremoniaU Parisiense of 1703, p. 2. Part i. c ii. 
§ 3, we find. " Omnes in ingressu chori, et eeressu, versa 
facie ad altare, profunde ante altare se incUnabunt. Si 
sanctissimum Sacramentum publicse fidelium veneratione sit 
expositum, omnes genuflectent nudo omnino capite, etiam 
hyeme." 



y Google 



136 Bowing towards the Altar. 

enter from the west, let them incline first to 
the altar, then to the dean. Let them follow 
the same rule in leaving the choir. . . • 
Moreover if any clerk crosses from one side of 
the choir to the other, let him incline to the altar 
in going and returning." » 

II. 
Heylyn, in describing the state of the English 
Church at the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's 
reign (a.d. 1560), tells us that " the Sacrament 
of the Lord's Supper was celebrated in most 
reverend manner, the holy table . seated in the 
place of the altar, the people making their 
due reverence at their first entrance into the 
church;" and that "the ancient ceremonies 
accustomably observed by the Knights of the 
Garter in their adoration toward the altar • , • 
were by this Queen retained as formerly in her 
father's time."^ The same historian, in his 
Cyprianus AngUcus^ speaking of the same period, 
says, " As for the duties of the people in those 
times and places, it was expected at their 
hands, that due and lowly reverence should be 
made at their first entrance into the church ; 
the place on which they stood, being by con- 
secration made holy ground, and the business 

* In 1256, and in the middle of the fifteenth century, the 
rule at Aberdeen was much the same as that quoted above 
from the Sarum books. 

" EccUsia Restaurata, or^ The History of the Reformation 
of the Church of England^ Vol. ii. pp. 315, 316, Eccles. 
Hist. Soc. 1849. 



y Google 



Bowing towards the Altar. 137 

which they came about, being holy business. 
For this there was no rule nor rubric made 
by the first Reformers, and it was not 
necessary that there should ; the practice of 
God*s people in that kind being so universal, 
Vi Catholica consuetudinis, by virtue of a general 
ind continual usage, that there was no need 
of any canon to rejoin them to it. Nothing 
more frequent in the writings of the ancient 
fathers than adoration toward the east, which 
drew the primitive Christians into some sus- 
picion of being worshippers of the sun, Inde 
suspicion quod innotucrit nos versus orientis rcgioium 
pricari, as TertuUian hath it. And though this 
pious custom began to be disused, and was 
almost discontinued, yet there remains some 
footsteps of it to this very day. For first, it 
was observed by the Knights of the most noble 
Order of the Garter, at their approaches 
toward the altar in all the solemnities of that 
Order. Secondly, in the oflFerings or oblations 
made by the Vice-Chancellor, the Proctors, 
and all Proceeders in the Arts and Faculties 
at the Act at Oxford. And thirdly, by most 
country women, who in the time of my first 
remembrance" (Heylyn was born in i6oo), 
**B.nd a long time after, made their obeisance 
towards the East, before they betook them- 
selves to their seats ; though it was then taken, 
or mistaken rather, for a courtesy made unto 
the minister ; revived more generally in these 
latter times, especially amongst the clergy, by 



y Google 



138 Bowing towards the Altar. 

the learned and reverend Bishop Andrewes, 
a man as much versed in primitive antiquity, 
and as abhorrent from anything which was 
merely popish, as the greatest precisian in 
the pack." » 

III. 

In the year 1640, in the reign of Charles I., 
Archbishop Laud occupying the See of Canter- 
bury, a set of memorable canons was put forth 
by the English Church. These canons are 
headed : — 

Constitutions and canons ecclesiastical, treated upon 
by the archbishops of Canterbury and York, presidents 
of the convocations for the respective provinces of 
Canterbury and York, and the rest of the bishops 
and clergy of those provinces, and agreed upon with 
the king's majesty's license in their several synods 
begun at London and York MDCXL, in the year 
of the reign of our sovereign lord Charles, by the 
grace of God king of England, Scotland, France, 
and Ireland, the sixteenth ; and now published for 
the due observation of them by his majesty's authority 
under the great seal of England.^ 

" Before the canons were oflFered to the houses 
(of convocation) for their subscription, they 
were read before the king and privy-council ; 
the judges, and other eminent persons of the 
long robe, being present. And here they were 
approved by the whole audience, the king 

« Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, p. ii. xviii. Dublin, 1 7 19. 
' Qurdwell, Synodalia, Vol. i. p. 380. 



y Google 



Bowing towards the Altar. 139 

giving the archbishop thanks for bringing 
things to so good an issue. After this solemn 
approbation, they were subscribed in the 
upper house by the bishops and the rest of 
the clergy; none refusing to put their hand 
but the Bishop of Gloucester." » 

These canons, adopted by the conrocations 
of the time, and possessing the sanction of the 
king and his privy-council, by the over-powering 
force of circumstances, did not receive the con- 
firmation of parliament ; and so never passed 
into the formally acknowledged law of the 
Church of England. As synodical acts they 
were perfect in form, they have never been 
repealed, and thus are possessed of Church 
authority. The question of their validity is 
discussed by Cardwell in his Synodalia, Vol. i. 
pp. xxviii., 380, flF., notes. 

The seventh of the canons of 1640 is printed 
here in full. 

A declaration concerning some rites and 
ceremonies. 

Because it is generally to be wished, that 
unity of faith were accompanied with uniformity 
of practice in the outward worship and service 
of God ; chiefly for the avoiding of groundless 
suspicions of those who are weak, and the 
malicious aspersions of the professed enemies 
of our religion ; the one fearing the innovations, 
the other flattering themselves with the vain 

X Collier, EccUs. Hist, pt ii. bk. ix. VoL ii. fol. 793. 
Lond. 17 14* 



y Google 



140 Bowing towards the Altar, 

hope of our backslidings unto their popish 
superstition, by reason of the situation of the 
communion table, and the approaches there- 
unto, the synod declareth as followeth : — 

That the standing of the communion table 
sideway under the east window of every chancel 
or chapel, is in its own nature indifierent, 
neither commanded nor condemned by the 
word of God, either expressly or by immediate 
deduction, and therefore that no religion is to 
be placed therein, or scruple to be made 
thereon. And albeit at the time of reforming 
this church from that gross superstition of 
popery, it was carefully provided that all 
means should be used to root out of the minds 
of the people, both the inclination thereunto, 
and memory thereof ; especially of the idolatry 
committed in the mass, for which cause all 
popish altars were demolished: yet notwith- 
standing it was then ordered by the injunctions 
and advertisements of queen Elizabeth of 
blessed memory, that the holy tables should 
stand in the place where the altars stood, and 
accordingly have been continued in the royal 
chapels of three famous and pious princes, 
and in most cathedrals and some parochial 
churches, which doth sufficiently acquit the 
manner of placing the said tables from any 
illegality, or just suspicion of popish super- 
stition or innovation. And therefore we judge 
it fit and convenient that all churches and 
chapels do conform themselves in this par- 



y Google 



Bowing towards the Altar. 141 

ticular to the example of the cathedral or 
mother churches, saving always the general 
liberty left to the bishop by law, during the 
time of administration of the holy communion. 
And we declare that this situation of the holy 
table, doth not imply that it is, or ought to be 
esteemed a true and proper altar, whereon 
Christ is again really sacrificed : but it is and 
may be called an altar by us, in that sense in 
which the primitive church called it an altar, 
and in no other. 

And because experience hath shewed us how 
irreverent the behaviour of many people is in 
many places, some leaning, others casting their 
hats, and some sitting upon, some standing, 
and others sitting under the communion table 
in time of divine service : for the avoiding of 
these and the like abuses, it is thought meet 
and convenient by this present synod, that the 
said communion tables in all chancels or 
chapels be decently severed with rails, to 
preserve them from such or worse profana- 
tions. 

And because the administration of holy 
things is to be performed with all possible 
decency and reverence, therefore we judge it 
fit and convenient, according to the word of 
the service book established by act of parlia- 
ment * Draw near,' etc., that all communicants 
with all humble reverence shall draw near and 
approach to the holy table, there to receive the 
divine mysteries, which have heretofore in 



y Google. 



142 Bowing towards the Altar. 

some places been unfitly carried up and down 
by the minister, unless it shall be otherwise 
appointed in respect of the incapacity of the 
place, or other inconvenience, by the bishop 
himself in his jurisdiction, and other ordinaries 
respectively in theirs. 

And lastly, whereas the church is the house 
of God, dedicated to his holy worship, and 
therefore ought to mind us both of the great- 
ness and goodness of his divine majesty; 
certain it is that the acknowledgment thereof, 
not only inwardly in our hearts, but also 
outwardly with our bodies, must needs be 
pious in itself, profitable unto us, and edifying 
unto others ; We therefore think it very meet 
and behoveful, and heartily commend it to all 
good and well-aflFected people, members of this 
Church, that they be ready to tender unto the 
Lord the said acknowledgment, by doing 
reverence and obeisance, both at their coming 
in and going out of the said churches, chancels, 
or chapels, according to the most ancient 
custom of the primitive Church in the purest 
times, and of this Church also for many years 
of the reign of queen Elizabeth. The reviving 
therefore of this ancient and laudable custom 
we heartily commend to the serious considera- 
tion of all good people, not with any intention to 
exhibit any religious worship to the communion 
table, the east, or church, or any thing therein 
contained in so doing, or to perform the said 
gesture in the celebration of the holy eucharist, 



y Google 



Bowing towards the Altar. 143 

upon any opinion of a corporal presence of the 
body of Jesus Christ on the holy table, or in 
mystical elements, but only for the advancement 
of God*s majesty, and to give him alone that 
honour and glory that is due unto him, and no 
otherwise ; and in the practice or omission 
of this rite, we desire that the rule of charity 
prescribed by the apostle may be observed, 
which is, that they which use this rite, 
despise not them who use it not ; and that 
they who use it not, condemn not those that 
use it.* 

From the references given below," there is 
exceedingly abundant evidence of the con- 

X Cardwell, Synodalia, Vol. i. pp. 404, ff. 

' Andrewes' Worksy Vol. iv. p. 374. Lib. Anglo-Cath. 
Theol. Bisse, The Beauty ofHoliness^ Decency and Order 
in Public Worship, pp. 72, ff. Bramhall's fVorJks, Vol. i. 
pp. Ixxix, Ixxx ; Vol. v. p. 77. Lib. A-C. Theol. TAe 
British Magazine^ Vol. viii. p. 33. 1835 5 Vol. xii. p. 639. 
1837. Life and Letters of W,J, Butler^ dean of Lincoln, 
p. 348. Collier's Eccles, History y VoL ii. Part ii. Book ix. 
foil. 762, 775. Cosines WorkSy Vol. v. pp. 90, 93, 105, 124. 
Lib. A-C. Theol. Hierurgia Anglicanay pp. 29, 30, 35, 
45, 50-63, 236-253, etc. Heylyn's Cyprtanus Anglicus^ 
Introd. p. 17 ; also History of the Reformation^ vol. ii. 
pp. 315, 316. Eccles. Hist. Soc. Lathbur/s History of the 
Book of Common Prayer^ 2nd cd. pp. 77, 153, 154, 165, 
172, 183, 184, 215. Laud's Worksy Vol. iv. pp. 201, 206, 
220-224, 230-234, 247, 285, 375, 404, 405 ; Vol. V. pt. i. 
pp. 205-207 ; Vol. V. pt. ii. pp. 496, 536 ; Vol. vi. pt. i. 
pp. 55, ff. Lib. A-C. Theol. Neal*s History of the Puritans^ 
vol. i. p. 223 ; Vol. iii. pp. 173, ff. Lond. 1822. Nicholas 
Ferrary ed. T. T. Carter, p. 115, and note. Robertson's 
How shall we conform to the Liturgy ? 3rd cd. pp. X16-12X. 
Murray, 1869, where much valuable icibrmation is given* 
Teremy Taylor's Worksy VoL v. pp. 315, fL edited by Eden, 



y Google 



144 Bowing towards the Altar. 

tinuous usage of bowing towards the altar, in 
the English Church since the Reformation » 
from the beginning of the reign of Queen 
Elizabeth down to the present time. We may 
say, in fact, that this evidence is quite over- 
whelming.* The authority for, and the 
evidence in favour of this devout and edifying 
custom is so very strong, that it becomes a 
matter of surprise that the making of a 
reverence towards the altar, on entering and 
on leaving a church, is so widely neglected 
by English people. It is one of the many 
ceremonial usages, which have a most valuable 
reflex action on the minds of those who practice 
them, in helping men to realize the sanctity 
of the house of God. 



1849. Windsor Regisierf commonly called The Black Book^ 
p. 65 (see note in Laud's fVorks, Vol. iv. pp. 206, 207. Lib. 
A-C. Theol.). Wordsworth's JVbfes on Medieval Services in 
England f p. 57. Wren's ParentcUia^ p. 81. 

I See Bp. Jeremy Taylor's treatise, On the Reverence due 
to the Altar ^ edited by Staley, published by Mowbray 
and Co., 1899, in which the whole subject of bowing 
towards the altar is treated at length and with considerable 
detail. 



y Google 



Zbe aitar^jfrontal. 



y Google 



Decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, 
pp. 147, 148 ; their bearing on the dictum " Omis- 
sion is not prohibition," p. 148; limitations as to 
this dictmn, pp. 148 — 150. Roman methods, p. 151. 
The uncovered altar prescribed by Roman authority, 
pp. 152 — 154; as also by English authority, pp. 
155 — 158. Evidence from pre- Reformation usage, 
pp. 158 — 162. Symbolical meaning of stripping the 
altar in Holy Week, pp. 162 — 163. Quotations from 
Dr. J. Wickham Legg, and Dr. Reginald Eager, 
bearing upon the subject of the vested altar, pp. 
163—166. Conclusion, p. 167. Notes, pp. 167, 168. 



yGoo5^1e 



VII. 
THE ALTAR -FRONTAL. 

IF any one will be at the trouble to consult 
the decrees of the Congregation of Sacred 
Rites at Rome, he will find scattered up and 
down the replies given by the Congregation to 
enquiries the words, "Nihil innovetur," and 
" Serventur rubricse." These words signify that 
some practice or other, not ordered by the 
Roman rubrics, is disallowed, and must be 
discontinued. This rule of the Roman Church, 
that omission is prohibition, appears to us 
extremely severe; but, for all that, it is the 
existing rule of the Congregation of Sacred 
Rites. To give an example ' — A certain priest 
was in the habit of making more bows to the 
cross during Mass, than the rubrics of the 
missal allowed or specified. The Congregation 
forbade the practice in question, decreeing that 
the bow is to be made when ordered, and not 
otherwise : nothing is to be left out, nothing is 
to be added. The bowing in question, not 
being ordered, is an unauthorised addition, 
and therefore it is forbidden. The bishop who 
makes the enquiry tells the Congregation of 

I Vide Gardellini, Decreia Authentica Cong, S, Rituum^ 
Appendix i. pp. 73 et seq. 



y Google 



148 The Altar-Frontal. 

Sacred Rites, that the priest has made the 
bows in question out of immemorial custom : 
but the answer is the same ; namely, that the 
rubrics must be kept, unless indeed the practice 
can be shown to have been in use for two 
hundred years before the revision of the 
rubrics of the Roman Missal under Pius V., in 
the year 1570. 

Now, the application of a rule so stringent 
and absolute may be very well in the case of 
the Roman Church, because the rubrics of the 
Mass are so full and precise, that there is no 
necessity to supplement them. " Serventur 
rubricae," in the Roman Church, is therefore 
defensible. But in the English Church, this is 
not the case to the same extent. In certain 
matters of ceremonial, though these are com- 
paratively few, there is obvious need both to 
supplement and also to interpret the rubrics 
and canons. Hence, with us, the strict appli- 
cation of the dictum, ** Omission to prescribe 
is prohibition to use," may be pushed too far: 
it requires some qualification. On the other 
hand, it needs to be said very plainly, that such 
qualification must be limited by various con- 
siderations, if a state of anarchy in ceremonial 
observances is to be avoided. 

. The first limitation is, that the ornament or 
gesture introduced without rubrical authority, 
must be an acknowledged necessity. As an 
example of a necessary ornament of the church, 
which is not explicitly authorised in the English 



y Google 



The Altar-Frontal. 149 

Church, we may take the credence table, upon 
which the elements may stand before they are 
placed on the altar at the oflfertory. The 
rubric^ cannot be obeyed without such a thing. 
As an example of a necessary gesture or action 
on the part of the minister of the Church, which 
is not named in the rubrics, the giving back of 
the child by the priest after baptising it, will 
suffice. It is however to be observed, that 
omissions of this kind are very few indeed.* 
Where no necessity of supplementing the 
rubrics or canons exists, quastio cadet^ and 
omission is clearly prohibition. It is idle 
to deny that the limitation from necessity, 
has in this matter been very considerably 
transgressed ; and the dictum, *< Omission is 
not prohibition," has been pressed much too 
far. It has, in fact, been used to cover many 
irregularities in the way of ornaments and 
gestures, which it is impossible to defend with- 
out special pleading. 

The second limitation to the application of 
the dictum, ** Omission is not prohibition," is, 
that before such a rule can be appealed to, it 
must be shewn that the ornament or gesture 
for which sanction is sought was in use in the 
English Church before the Reformation ; that 

I " The priest shall then place upon the Table so much 
bread and wine as he shall thmk sufficient." 

' Dr. Wickham Legg reminds me that even a credence is 
not an absolute necessity. If the vestry be near the chancel, 
the elements may readily be brought by the churchwardens 
from the vestry at the time of the offertory, v. s. 



y Google 



150 The Altar-Frontal. 

it has not since bsen forbidden, explicitly or 
implicitly; and that the occasion for its use 
still continues. The bishop's mitre, or the 
signing the elements with the cross in the 
Prayer of Consecration at the Eucharist, may 
perhaps serve as an illustration here. 

The third limitation in the application of the 
saying, "Omission is not prohibition," is, that, in 
any given instance, whether in regard to orna- 
ments or gestures, nothing must be introduced 
which contradicts the explicit directions of the 
rubrics or canons. That is to say, the direction 
to use a given ornament or gesture implies the 
prohibition to substitute any other ornament 
or gesture. Where the directions are clear, 
omission to prescribe an alternative ornament, 
gesture or action, is obviously prohibition. For 
example, the rubric directs the celebrant to 
consume what remains of the Consecrated 
Elements immediately after the Blessing, and 
not before. It is notorious that this has been 
done in some cases after the Communion of the 
people; on what grounds, it is impossible to 
say. As a further example of irregularity in 
this matter, we come to consider the subject 
named at the head of this article. 

I. 

In a former article, in which the subject of 
genuflection at the Eucharist during the Canon 
was discussed, we remarked that in the Roman 
Church this practice was introduced many 



y Google 



The Altar-Frontal. 151 

years before it was authorised by the rubrics 
of the post-Tridentine Missal. Genuflection 
was also practised in England in Queen 
Mary's reign, as we know from the writings 
of Thomas Becon : ' although it was not 
ordered in the rubrics of the missals used in 
England at that period. Had the Congrega- 
tion of Sacred Rites, animated by its present 
spirit, existed before the year 1570;' and had 
the practice of genuflecting during the Canon 
been brought to its notice by the way of 
enquiry; the practice would probably have 
been forbidden, under the dictum, ** Nihil 
innovetur," or **Serventur rubricse." But 
uniformity in ceremonial matters has not 
always been a mark of the Roman Church, 
nor yet consistency either. A new practice 
was in course of development, and it was 
let alone, till public opinion demanded its 
sanction. It was, in the sixteenth century at 
Rome, held that omission to prescribe was not 
prohibition to use: otherwise genuflection 
would never have been tolerated. 

But when we come to consider the subject 
now about to be examined, namely, that of 
the covering of the altar, a very diflferent issue 

' "After ye have once spoken these five words, Hoc est 
enim corpus meum, over the bread, ye kneel down to it and 
worship It." — Tlu Displaying of the Popish Mass^ Becon's 
Works, iii. p. 270. Parker Soc. 

* The Congregation of Sacred Rites was instituted in 
1588, by Pope Sixtus V., who occupied the papal chair from 
1585 to 1590. 



y Google 



152 Th$ Altar-Frontal. 

is before us. Genuflection was not forbidden, 
it was merely not prescribed. The leaving the 
altar uncovered by a frontal or antependium 
is positively excluded as unlawful by the 
existing rubrics of the Roman Missal : and this 
has been the rule since the eighth century.' 
From the old Ordo Romanus,^ we may infer that 
at the beginning of eighth century it was the 
rule to keep the altar generally covered : for in 
this Ordo, we find a direction that the altar is to 
be bare from the evening of Maundy Thursday 
to the morning of Easter Even. The antiquity 
of this direction is proved by its being cited by 
Amalarius, at the beginning of the ninth 
century .3 And yet, Italy and Spain excepted, 
the direction of the Roman rubrics is widely 
defied on the continent. As to what is to be 
urged in defence of so flagrant disregard of 
authority ,4 we leave others to say. The fact, 
to our astonishment, remains: the direction 
to cover the altar with a pallium or frontal is 

X Mr. W. B. Marriott, sayn, " In the sixth century, St 
Gregory of Tours speaks of an altar, with the oblations upon 
it, being covered with a silken cloth during the celebration of 
Mass. Cum jam altarium cum oblationibus pailio serico 
opertum esset. (Hist. Franc, vii. 22 ; compare Mabillon, 
Liturgica Gallicana, p. 41.) — Smith and Cheetham's Dut, 
of Christian Antiquities, Vol. i. p. 69. Lond. 1875. 

' Ordo Rom, i. cap. v. § 32. Mabillon, Mus, Ital, torn iL 
p. 22, n. 

3 De Eccles, OffU, lib i. cap. 12 ; Hittorp. col. 334. 

4 Quarti, an important Roman rubricist (Venice, 1737, 
p. 130), insists on ttie importance of the altar being covered ; 
and discusses the question whether a priest sins, if he cele- 
brates at an altar without a frontal. 



y Google 



The Altar-Frontal. 153 

not to any extent complied with abroad. The 
Roman rubric to which we refer is given under 
Ruhrica Generales Missalis. xx. de praparationc 
altarisy et ornamentum ejus. ** Hoc altare operiatur 
tribus mappis. . . . Pallio quoque ornetur 
(altare) colons quoad fieri potest, diei festo, 
vel Officio convenient is/* * '* This altar shall 
be covered with three linen cloths. ... It 
shall also be adorned with a frontal, of the 
colour as far as possible belonging to the feast 
of the day or to the service." » The Caremoniale 
Episcoporum directs that the pallium dltaris^ i.e. 
the altar-frontal, is to be continued right round 
the high altar, back and front, whenever the 
altar is not attached to the wall ; and that all 
the other altars are to have frontals of the 
colour of the day.3 It may be here said that 

' Missale Romanum^ Venetiis, 171 3. 

' A modern writer in The Months May, 1896, says : '* It 
has been maintained by competent commentators, that 
this rubric even more than insinuates, if it does not ex- 
plicitly and in so many words prescribe, that rather than 
that the altar should have no pallium at all, it should in 
case of necessity, on account of poverty or otherwise, 
be clothed with a pallium of the wrong colour. 
There is, moreover, in support of their argument the fact 
that another rubric connumerates and places on the same 
level the vestments of the altar ^ of the celebrant, and of the 
ministers. The eighteenth of the General Rubrics of the 
Missal says ; ' The vestments of the altar^ of the celebrant, 
and of the ministers, ought to be of the colour which belongs 
to the Office and Mass of the day, in accordance with the 
use of the Roman Church.'" — p. 106. 

3 '* Ipsum vero altare majus in festivitatibus solemnioribus, 
aut Episcopo celebraturo, quo splendidius poterit, pro tem- 
porum tamen varietate, et exigentia, ornabitur : quod si a 
pariete disjunctum, et separatum sit, apponentur tarn a parte 



y Google 



154 ^^^ Altar-Frontal. 

the rubrics of the Missal and the directions of 
the Caremoniale Episcoporum are authoritatively 
binding in the Roman Church, on matters of 
ceremonial. It would be interesting to know 
what the Congregation of Sacred Rites at 
Rome would say, if the practice, so common 
abroad, of leaving the front of the altar 
uncovered, was made the matter of a com- 
plaint. We think that the Congregation would 
a little shrink from enforcing *' Nihil in- 
novetur," or "Serventur rubricae,** all round 
in such a case. Certainly any attempt to 
enforce the rubric referred to, as it now stands, 
would put many thousands of parish priests 
on the continent to some little trouble and 
expense ! 

The readers of the foregoing essays will by 
this time have gathered, that we do not think 
there is any justification in appealing to the 
continental Churches as our model in cere- 



anterior!, quam posteriori illius pallia aurea, vel argentea, 
aut sericea, auro perpulchre contexta, colons festivitati con- 
gruentis, eaque sectis, quadratisque lignis munita, quae telaria 
▼ocant, ne rugosa, aut sinuosa, sed extensa, et explicata 
decentius conspiciantur. . • . Caetera altaria per ecclesiam 
pariter palliis concoloribus, decentibusque ornentur." — 
Carem, Episc, Lib i. cap. xii. They seem to have had a 
frontal covering the ends of the altar as well as the front, at 
St. Nicholas, Aberdeen: — ** Magister thomas chawmer 
capellanus altaris beate marie virginis decoravit dictum altare 
cum duobus dependenciis videlicet frontalibus unum de 
serico et aliud de panno auri texto circumeuntibus totum 
altare." This was between 1484 and 1513 ; Cartularium 
Ecclesiae SancH Nicholai Aberdonemis, voL L p. 64, New 
Spaiding Club, Aberdeen, 1888. 



y Google 



The Altar-Frontal. 155 

monial. In keeping to the ceremonial usages 
of our own Church, we are but carrying out a 
principle conspicuously Catholic, namely, that 
"it is not necessary that traditions and cere- 
monies be in all places one, or utterly like; 
for at all times they have been divers, and 
may be changed according to the diversities of 
countries, times, and men's manners."' But 
in spite of this, it is very remarkable that the 
Roman disobedience in the matter of leaving 
the altar uncovered has been carefully copied 
amongst us. And what makes the imitation in 
this particular matter more intolerable and 
deserving of condemnation, is, that it involves 
the same disobedience to English authority, 
as the continental custom does to Roman 
authority. It is bad enough, in any case, to 
follow a Roman custom which is contrary to 
Roman authority: it is doubly bad to do so 
in defiance of a direction of the English 
Church to the contrary. In whatever way we 
view the practice of leaving the altar-front 
uncovered, it is a practice dictated by private 
judgment double-dyed. The matter before us 
involves a question of authority, and of obedi- 
ence to authority, apart from individual taste 
in one direction or the other. To follow in- 
clination at the expense of duty, and private 
sentiment in defiance of authority, cannot be 
regarded as desirable. 

t Article zxxiv. Ofth4 Traditions of the Church, 



y Google 



156 The AUar-Frontal. 

II. 

In referring to the custom of the continental 
Churches in regard to the naked altar, we* have 
stated the authoritative direction which is 
transgressed. We now proceed to state the 
case against the uncovered altar in England. 
The direction to cover the altar is, as is well 
known, contained in the Canons of 1604. ^^ 
Canon Ixxxii., it is ordered, that the Holy 
Table shall be "covered, in time of divine 
service, with a carpet of silk or other decent 
stuflF, thought meet by the ordinary of the 
place, if any question be made of it." * In the 
Latin version of the Canon we have, ''ac 
tempore divini cultus mensae operiantur tapete 
ex serico, sive ex alia materia."' The direction 
is precise and definite: the altar must be 
«* covered with a carpet of silk or other decent 
stuff." 

Now it happens that the covering of the 
altar by a frontal or antependium is a custom 
so ancient and so continuous in England, 
as to come very near being entitled to be 
regarded as a Catholic custom, relatively 
speaking. For us in England, a bare altar- 
front is distinctly Puritan. It was no new 
direction which was given in the canons 
of 1604. In 1551, at the close of the reign of 
Edward VI., Bishop Hooper enquired, 
"Whether the table for the Communion be 

> Card well, Synodaliai, p. 293. * Ibid. p. 211. 



y Google 



Th$ Altar-Frontal. 157 

decked and apparalled behind and before, as 
the altars were wont to be decked."* In 
1559, the first year of Queen Elizabeth's reign, 
a set of Injunctions was put forth, which 
included a similar direction : " That the Holy 
Table in every church be decently made, and 
set in the place where the altar stood, and there 
commonly " (i.e. as usually) " covered, as there- 
to belongeth." » In the same year, on the death 
of King Henry II. of France, the queen ap- 
pointed his obsequies to be solemnly observed 
at St. Paul's Cathedral. Strype 3 gives a list of 
the expenses incurred on this occasion ; amongst 
which we find, " The carpet of velvet for the 
Communion Table, £16 13s. 4d.** At Arch- 
bishop Parker's consecration, later in the 
same year, in Lambeth Chapel, the Holy 
Table was covered with a carpet : " Principio 
sacellum tapetibus ad orientem adornabatur; 
solum vero panno rubro insternebatur ; mensa 
quoque sacris peragendis necessaria, tapeto 
pulvinarique ornata, ad orientem sita erat."^ 
''In the first place the chapel was adorned 
with carpets in the eastern part; indeed the 

1 Later Writings, p. 142, § xxiii. Parker Soc. It seems 
doubtful if Hooper intended that the holy table should be 
thus decked : it is possible that he was merely asking a 
question, with a view to finding out how much " popery *' 
was still rife. 

* Card well, Doc, Annals, i. p. 234. 

3 Annals of the Reformation ^VoX A, part. i. ch.ix.fol. 127. 

* Rituum et ceremoniarum ordo in consecration* reveren- 
dissimi domini Afatthai Parker: Card well, Doc, Ann, i. 
p. 276. 



y Google 



158 The Altar-Frontal. 

floor was covered with red cloth; the table, 
moreover, necessary for celebrating the holy 
mysteries, was decorated with a carpet and a 
cushion, and was placed towards the East." 
In 1564, Queen Elizabeth issued certain ordi- 
nances to Archbishop Parker, in which occurs, 
** They shall decently cover with carpet, silk, or 
other decent covering, and with a fair linen 
cloth, at the time of the ministration, the 
Communion Table." » 

If we go further back to pre-Reformation 
times, we find the same rule observed. Father 
Bridgett, speaking of early English days, says, 
<< The substructure of the altar was plain, not 
carved or decorated, and it was covered with a 
frontal. Hence, when stripped on Good Friday, 
it did not by its splendour contrast with the 
mournful appearance of the church, but well 
symbolised our Lord's body, as it hung naked 
on the cross." « Mr. Peacock says, " The 
altar-frontal was a movable front of metal, 
wood, or silk, put close to the fore part of the 
altar, reaching from the slab on the top to the 
ground. The frontals were usually of the same 
colour as the vestments, and were changed at 
the same times, according to the festivals. 

1 Strype, Life of Parker^ Vol. iii. book ii. fol. 49. 

For further post-Reformation evidence of the use of altar- 
frontals, see Hierurgia Anglicana ; and also the Visitation 
Articles of bishops and archdeacons, g^iven in Appendix E., 
Second Report of the Royal Commission on Ritual, 

» History of the Holy Eucharist in Great Britain^ VoL 
i. p. 157. Lond. 1881. 



y Google 



The Altar-Frontal. 159 

Sometimes the silken frontals veiled the two 
sides as well as the front of the altar. The 
modern custom of ornamenting the front of the 
altar with sculpture or painting was almost, 
if not quite, unknown in this country before 
the Reformation."^ Mr. Comper likewise says, 
'<An absolutely plain fabric of stone, or oc- 
casionally of wood, was the rule for the altar 
at the time of our rubric," i.e., the Ornaments 
Rubric. . . . '* No black covering can com- 
pensate for the sense of desolation produced 
by the appearance of a bare and absolutely 
plain stone altar stripped of its frontal." » Mr. 
Micklethwaite gives a similar verdict, '' There 
is no English authority for the altar itself being 
carved and painted. Most old ones were quite 
plain, but a few were panelled in front." 3 Mr. 
H. W. Brewer, writing in The Month,^ says, 
''The early altars are remarkably plain, and 
have no candle ledge, projecting base mould, 
or tabernacle. Their extreme plainness was 
in no way the result of accident, such as want 
of means or inability to do something better ; 
because it was the case right through the 
middle ages, even in the rich, handsome 



I English Church Furniture^ p. 56, n. The above 
quotation refers primarily to an altar-front at Braunceton, 
sold in the year 1566, which evidently was one of the 
pre- Reformation ornaments still remaining in that year. 

" SL PauPs EccUs, Soc, 7rcuis. Vol. iv. p. 87. 

3 The Ornaments of the Rubric* Alcuin Club Tracts, i. 
p. 26, n. 1897. 

* February, 1897, pp. 162, ff. 



y Google 



i6o The Altar 'Frontal. 

churches of the fourteenth and fifteenth 
centuries, as we see at Arundel church, the 
Fitzalan choir of which still retains its mediaeval 
altars. The earliest existing altar in England 
is in a chapel attached to the cloisters of 
Westminster Abbey, undoubtedly a portion of 
the buildings erected by St. Edward the Con- 
fessor. • . • The altar follows the usual design, 
and is absolutely devoid of all ornamentation." 
In similar terms to Father Bridgett, Mr. Brewer 
then proceeds to give the reason for this ex- 
cessive plainness. It was, he says, in order 
that, on Good Friday when the altars were 
stripped, they might present the idea of intense 
sadness. " Fancy the central object in some 
magnificent minster or cathedral being a bare 
block of unadorned stonework ! Yet the most 
gorgeous churches in this country would have 
exhibited such a spectacle on Good Friday.'* 
Now this prepares us to hear, that it was the 
rule in England for every altar to be vested 
at other times. Mr. Brewer goes on to say,' 
** There can be no doubt that English altars 
were invariably supplied with antependia or 
movable frontals. They possessed, moreover, 
the super-frontal, which was not the object 
now so-called, but a separate article, usually 
of drapery or metal- work, covering the lower 
part of the reredos, or dorsal. In small 
churches, no doubt, both the lower and the 
upper frontal were of silk-velvet or tapestry, 
X The Months Feb. 1897, p. 167. 



y Google 



The Altar-Frontal. i6i 

but in minsters and cathedral churches, they 
had for grand festivals precious frontals of 
remarkable splendour. One still remains at 
Westminster Abbey, in a very mutilated 
condition." » 

In the Inventory of St. Paul's cathedral, 
made in the year 1295, ^^ ^^^^ • 

" Unum frontale, de negro Sameto, cum barris et Vineis 
de aurifrigio bono, ad majus altare. 

** Item, aliud frontale strictum breudatum cum pluribus 
diversis sentis, et in medio breudantur ymagines, crucifixi, 
Mariae et Johannis ; et in extremitatibus ymagines Petri et 
Pauli Apostolorum, de done Magistri Johannis de St Clare, 
ad idem altare. 

" Item, i. frontale de panno inciso, de dono Johannis 
de Braghyng. Ad altare B. Marise V. in navi ecclesise. 

" Item, pannus-frontalis de baudekynos ; etpannus super- 
frontalis de rubro cendato, cum turrilibus et Leopardis 
deauratis." » 

At Durham, before the Suppression, we read, 
**The dayly ornaments that were hunge both 
before the altar, and above, were of red velvett, 
wrought with great flowers of gold in imbroy- 
dered worke, with many goodly pictures besides, 
beinge very finely gilted." 3 

Mr. Comper, in speaking of the custom of 
decorating the fabric of the altar, and doing 
away altogether with movable frontals, says, 
* I have not met with any authority for 
this apart from the celebration of mass for the 
dead; nor is the custom to be found in 

I This now hangs in a glass case over King Sebert's 
monument in the south choir aisle. 

» qu. in The Months Feb. 1897, p. 168. 
3 Kites of Durham, p. 6. Surtees Soc. 

M 



y Google 



i62 The Altar-Frontal. 

conservative places on the continent. The 
numerous altars, all with their frontals of 
various colours, are conspicuous in an Italian 
church." » 

Mr. Micklethwaite gives the same evidence, 
** Frontals ad magnum altare was amongst the 
things to be found by the parishioners, and old 
pictures of English altars in use always show 
them vested. The frontal might take the form 
of a tablet, such as the well known example in 
Westminster Abbey, but I think it rarely did 
so in a parish church." « 

Dr. Rock gives a similar verdict. In de- 
scribing the symbolical meaning of the old 
Sarum and Benedictine, and, we may say, 
universal, custom of stripping the altars 
quite bare on Maundy Thursday, and so 
leaving them till Easter Even — and this is 
now the Roman use — he says, **At the more 
solemn festivals, the high altar, in the richer 
churches, was sheathed in a gold or silver 
frontal studded with precious stones; while 
in the less wealthy ones, it was gracefully 
shrouded in the folds of a costly silken pall : 
on lower festivals, less splendid but always 
seemly coverings arrayed the altar in both one 
and the other. But when the season for 
mourning came; or when, at due time, the 
Church, in her dolefulness, threw aside her 

* Some Principles and Services of the Prayer Book, pp. 
103, 104. Rivingtons, 1899. 
' The Ornanients of the Kubric, p. 26, n. 



y Google 



The Altar-Frontal. 163 

ornaments, and wept, as in Holy Week, over 
the bufifets and scourgings and the bitter throes 
of Christ nailed on the rood-tree, the plain 
altar-front, instead of needing, like some 
modern ones, to be muffled up to hide its 
gilding and its brightly coloured sculptures, all 
ill-suited to be seen on such a day of sadness 
and of mourning, stood forth — as the spirit of 
the rubrics has always wished it — an emblem 
of the Church's heart at the time, sorrowful, 
and in its own simple unadorned appearance, 
stripped of its smallest, even its every-day 
comeliness, as well as its casual splendours. 
Naked, like Christ Himself upon the cross, 
the altar presented a touching symbol of 
sadness." ' 

III. 
We will conclude this essay by a somewhat 
lengthy quotation from Dr. Wickham Legg's 
paper, Some Ancient Liturgical Customs now falling 
into disuse^ which is found in Volume H. pp. 
113, flf., of ** The Transactions of the St. Paul's 
Ecclesiological Society ;" and which, from the 
writer's knowledge of ecclesiology, carries con- 
siderable weight. " The Holy Table has in some 



' TAe Church of our Fathers^ Vol. i. pp. 233, 234. 

At the end of one of his chapters, headed, cur altaria 
nudentury in explaining the ceremonies of Holy Week, 
Rupert, A.D. iiii, says: *'Cum ergo altare Christum 
significet, recte ob commemorationem horum, vestitu et 
omatu suo spoliatum est." — Ruperti, Abb. Tuitiensis, D$ 
Div. Offic, lib. V. cap. 30. 



y Google 



164 The Altar-Frontal. 

cases been left without any decent covering, not 
merely on Good Friday, but at all times ; and 
to this, I fancy, some have been tempted by 
a feeling that it is a pity to leave a very 
handsome altar unseen. Others have done 
the same because it is a modern French use 
to have no frontal, although the use of a 
frontal, like that of a cushion, is certainly 
contemplated by the Roman rubrics. It seems 
likely that the disuse of a frontal came in at 
the same time that the sextons began to leave 
the linen cloths, with the candlesticks and 
other ornaments, permanently on the altar ; it 
was a trouble to change the frontal every day 
to white, or green, or red, according as the 
saint of the day was a virgin, a confessor, 
or a martyr; .and so the simplest method 
was to discontinue the use of the frontals 
altogether. 

"The idea that it is a pity not to show 
whatever we have that is handsome or rich in 
a church would be disastrous if carried out 
widely. Have we not been told over and over 
again that it is a distinguishing note of 
Christian art, separating it from that of the 
Renaissance, to lavish careful work and 
precious ornaments on the House of God, 
even where they could not be seen ? and does 
not an ultra-montane ritualist, like Dom 
Prosper Gu^ranger, insist upon the mystery 
that should shroud all that is done at the 
altar? I think this idea of hiding the altar 



y Google 



The Altar-Frontal. 165 

is a very old Chistian notion. We find mention 
of veils hung before the altar in th^ fourth 
century, which, if not altar-cloths as we mean 
them, must have served to veil the altars from 
view; but certainly from the sixth century 
onwards we read of palls of silk and purple, 
which certainly covered the altar. (See the 
article on Altar Cloths in Smith and Cheetham's 
Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, Vol. i. p. 69. 
Lond. 1875.) In the Middle Ages the altar 
was undoubtedly covered, as the inventories 
continually tell us of fronts or frontals. The 
Canons of 1603 order the Holy Table to be 
covered with a * carpet of silk or other decent 
stu£f,* thus continuing the tradition universal 
in Christendom down to that time. In Italy, 
the custom of having a frontal is universal 
at the present day. As soon as one crosses 
the Var, which up to i860 divided France 
from Italy, one comes into a country of 
frontals to altars. In Italy it is rare to 
find an altar without a frontal. All the 
altars in St. Peter's at Rome have frontals.' 
And even where the altars are very precious 
and beautiful, they still have frontals. I do 
not remember ever to have seen the altar 
of St. Ambrose at Milan, which is encrusted 
with plates of gold, enamel, and precious 
stones, exposed during divine service. Even 

' The high altar at St. Peter's, Rome, is vested in a frontal 
back as well as front. See Bishop Hooper's question, pre- 
viously quoted, pp. 156, 157. 



y Google 



1 66 The Altar-Frontal. 

at Easter it is covered with a frontal of the 
colour oLthe day. 

'< I should think it likely that naked altars, 
except in the case of the few stone altars 
which are met with here and there in England, 
were unknown until some ten years ago.' 
English altars, in accordance with the tra- 
dition of Christendom, and the rule given 
by the Canons of 1603, were hidden from 
view/'* 

Dr. Reginald Eager in his most interesting 
paper. Notes on Customs in Spanish Churches, 
illustrative of Old English Ceremonial , says, •* The 
Spanish Altars were entirely covered by a 
hanging of some kind, and not as is so often the 
case now with us having only a top and frontal, 
back and sides being left bare. In Spain the 
back and sides often have a rich hanging also, 
so that the altar itself is completely hidden 
from view, however handsome its material and 
adornment may be. This ancient and good 
custom still prevailed in England as many of 
us can recollect, until a few years ago, and it 
still does at St. Peter's, and St. John Lateran 
in Rome, and other great churches on the 
continent." 3 



z The above was written in 1887. 

» Dr. J. Wickham Legg, St. Pours EceUs. Sec. Trans. 
Vol. ii. pp. 118, 119. 

3 St. PauVsEccUs. Soc. Trans. Vol. iv. p. 116. 

See Caremoniale Episcoporum, quoted previously in this 
article, pp. 153, 154, n. 



y Google 



The Altar-Frontal. 167 

We think that enough has been said to 
demonstrate that the practice of discarding 
the altar-frontal should be abandoned, where- 
ever it now obtains; not because it is 
indefensible from a Roman point of view, but 
because it is forbidden by the rules of the 
English Church. We can in this case plead, 
as unhappily we cannot always plead, that the 
authority of the English and Roman Churches 
is in complete accord. In the case of churches 
possessing altars with fixed elaborate fronts, 
there can be no objection to their being 
exposed, if it is so desired, out of service 
time. The letter of the direction of Canon 
Ixxxii. of 1604 is satisfied, by covering the 
altar "in time of divine service." 



Note I. — " The practice of leaving the altar bare has but 
small countenance tiom the middle ages. Even the early 
ecclesiologists (in England) did not attempt this; and it was 
not until we began the practice of making expeditions into 
France and Belgium, that bare altars were seen to any 
extent in England. In these countries it may very likely be 
that their poverty and not their will consents to this. A 
frontal, of the colour of the Mass, is ordered in the Roman 
Missal of to-day ; it is an instance of the way in which the 
rubrics of the Roman Missal are disobeyed ; which ought 
not to be surprising to those who are accustomed to see the 
plainest directions of the Book of Ck)mmon Prayer set aside. 
The custom of hiding the altar from sight by a veil may be 
said to be almost universal in the Church ; and at a time 
when so much is said of the importance of following oecu- 
menical custom, it is a little surprising that Churchmen 
should allow themselves to be parties to the breaking of the 



y Google 



1 68 The Altar-Frontal. 

Church law, merely to fall in with the views of Italianising 
architects." — Meduxval Ceremonial^ The Church Quarterly 
Review, January, 1900. Vol. xlix. p. 403. 

Even in Belgium l)are altars seem to be quite modem. 
" L'antependium aux couleurs liturgiques persista, dans la 
Belgique, jusqu'^ une ^poque r^ente." — Retme de CArt 
chrltien^ 1886. 3* s^rie, t. iv. p. 459 note. 



Note II.— Fr. Bridgett, in his History of the Holy Eu- 
charist in Great Britain^ Vol. ii. pp. 258, 259, in describing 
the Easter festival in the twelfth century, has an interesting 
passage relating to the altar-frontal : " The altar-frontal 
was to be of silk, of silver, or of gold plates, if the church 
possessed such riches ; concerning which Belethus tells us 
of an interesting symbolic rite practised in some places in 
his day. In front of the rich antependium, or altar-frontal, 
were hung three cloths. That nearest to the altar was red ; 
it was covered with one of greyish tint; and that again with 
black. The matins were sung at early dawn, and during 
the singing of the psalms and reading of the first lesson, the 
black cloth was alone seen. This represented the time 
before the law of Moses. At the end of the first lesson 
this was removed, and the second or grey antependium was 
uncovered, representing the Mosaic dispensation. During 
the third lesson, the red frontal was dis{>layed, indicating 
the time of grace purchased by the Precious Blood. But 
when the Te Deum was intoned, the red hanging also was 
removed, and the more brilliant white, or gold, or silver 
frontal foretold the eternal glory purchased by Christ's death 
and resurrection." — Fr. Bridgett's reference to Belethus 
occurs in the latter's Rationale Div, Cffit* cap. 69, de Nativ. 
Dom., and cap. 115, de Omatu Templi Materialis. See 
also Dr. J. Wickham Legg*8 treatise. Notes on the History 
of the Liturgical Colours, St, PauPs Eccles, Soc, Trans, 
Vol. i. p. 105, where a most interesting reference to the 
foregoing matter is made. 



y Google 



Zbc aitar-liobt0. 



y Google 



The development of ceremonial, pp. 171 — 173. 
Ceremonial development mider present circum- 
stances impossible and undesirable in the English 
Church, pp. 174 — 176. The six lights of Roman 
altars, pp. 176 — 178; their origin, pp. 178 — 180. 
Lights placed on the altar not ancient, p. 180. 
Mr. Brewer's theory of the origin of the six lights, 
p. 181. Two altar-lights more ancient, pp. 181, 
182 : their symbolic meaning, pp. 182 — 185. Two 
lights, or at least one, ordered by Archbishop 
Reynolds a.d. 1322, in England, p. 185. Evidence 
as to the number of lights on the altar previous to 
the Reformation, pp. 186 — 190; and during the 
second year of Edward VL, p. 190. Six lights on 
the altar a departure from old English and medieval 
precedent, p. 191. Modem Roman rules as to 
altar-lights, p. 191. Conclusion, p. 192. Note i., 
Mr. Comperes opinion, p. 193. Note 2., Candle- 
sticks to be placed on the mensa of the altar 
p. 194. 



y Google 



VIII. 
THE ALTARLIGHTS. 

IT is impossible to study the subject of 
religious ceremonial from a historical 
point of view, without arriving at the con- 
clusion that ceremonial has been a thing of 
growth or development. This development 
has been sometimes for the better, soinetimes 
for the worse. We have been recently told, 
that the perfection of Western ceremonial was 
reached in the early middle ages, and that after 
the thirteenth century it degenerated into over 
elaboration.' This ceremonial development 
has very largely prevailed in the Roman 
Church. We have but to examine the cere- 
monial directions of the early Roman Ordines* 
and the rubrics of the Roman Missal of 1484,3 
or those of the old Carthusian Missals, and to 
compare them with the rubrics of the Roman 
Missal of Pius V. a.d. 1570, to learn how 
considerable this development or elaboration 

X Lord Halifax, in The Guardian^ Oct. 18, 1899, p. 1450. 
col. iii. 

' The early Roman Ordines are given in Cassander, and 
in Hittorpius ; and Mabillon has printed several of them in 
his Museum licUicum^ Vol. ii. Duchesne also prints one of 
the ninth century in his Ortgitusdu Culte Chritien, 2nd ed., 
Appendix i. 

3 Recently reprinted, under the editorship of Dr. Lippe, 
by the Henry Bradshaw Society. 



y Google 



172 The Altar-Lights, 

has been. And this growing enrichment of 
ceremonial has not been peculiar to the Roman 
Church, but has been common to all parts of 
the universal Church. It is for this reason that 
the application of the term 'Catholic' to 
religious ceremonial is inadmissable, using that 
august term in its absolute sense— the sense in 
which we apply it to the faith. "That is 
Catholic, as the Greek word signifies, which is 
universal and general, both in time, person, 
and place." ' It is impossible to say that any 
but very few ceremonies have been in the 
Church semper, always. 

Mr. Edmund Bishop, writing as a Roman 
Catholic, has recently called attention to the 
fact of the growth of ceremonial in the Church 
of which he is so distinguished a layman. He 
says, *'To represent the ceremonial of the 
Roman Mass of the sixth, or even the fifth 
century to the mind's eye is, perhaps, to-day 
no such easy matter, now that long habit has 
accustomed us to much that we view as a 
natural accompaniment of the service. For 
instance, we do not realise at once how much 
of added and imposing ceremonial is involved 
in the addition, in the twelfth and thirteenth 
centuries, of the single act of the elevation of 
the Host and Chalice, with its accompanying 
lights and torches, censings, bell-ringings, and 
genuflections. Next, all ideas of censing the 

I PVoris of Pilkingtony Bishop of Durham, p. 548. 
Parker Soc 



y Google 



The Altar-Lights. 173 

altar, the elements for the sacrifice, or persons, 
are alien to the native Roman rite, and have 
been introduced into it from elsewhere in the 
course of centuries. In trying to figure to 
ourselves the true and unadulterated Roman 
ceremonial of the mass, we must conceive 
ritual pomp as confined to two moments: first, 
the entry of the celebrant into the church and 
up to the altar ; secondly, in connection with 
the singing of the Gospel. . . . The cere- 
monial parts of the old Roman mass are over, 
just as the sacrifice is about to begin.'* » We 
have only to compare Mr. Bishop's description 
of the old order, with what is now seen every 
Sunday or high day in any Roman Catholic 
church, to note at once how great has been the 
development of ceremonial in the Roman 
Church. And these ceremonial developments 
are still in progress, some sanctioned by 
authority, some not. Development is a lead- 
ing characteristic of the Roman Church — 
development of doctrine, of ritual, of cere- 
monial. New things in each of these three 
departments are constantly becoming es- 
tablished. The faith of the Roman Church 
of to-day is not the faith of the days of Pius V., 
neither is the ceremonial.' 

I 7 he Genius of the Roman Rite, pp. 10, ff. 

» With the exception of Spain, the development of cere- 
monial in the Roman Church during the last three hundred 
years has been one long piece of degradation, consequent on 
the Pagan renaissance. The English Church has been saved 
all this, by the fixed standard of the Ornaments Rubric. 



y Google 



174 ^^^ Altar-Lights, 

But when we turn our attention to the 
religious ceremonial of the English Church, 
a very different state of things presents itself 
to our notice. For the last three hundred 
and fifty years, ceremonial development has 
been rendered impossible, by reason of the 
very condition of things. The legalised orna- 
ments of the church and the ministers are 
the ornaments of 1548-9; that is, of three 
and a half centuries ago. The rubrics of 
to-day are the rubrics practically of 1559. 
There is the Act of Uniformity of 1662, which 
bars the way to ritual if not to ceremonial 
development. Some persons may be ready 
to bewail these restrictions on ceremonial 
growth in the English Church. Others are 
to be found who, for practical reasons, do 
not complain; for they are convinced that, 
if any ceremonial developments had become 
authorised, the work would have been so badly 
done, by reason of the incompetence of the 
men of the times, that it would probably 
have to be undone. This reproach is ready to 
be wiped away; for there are already in our 
midst not a few competent liturgioligists and 
antiquaries, of whose learning we need not be 
ashamed. Until such times as these experts 
are called upon to advise, and the English 
Church is free to revise her ceremonial code, 
our duty is plain— it is to abide loyally and 
cheerfully by the ceremonial rules contained in 
the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer. 



y Google 



The Altar-Lights. 175 

Wei' do not say that there is no room for some 
development or enrichment of English cere- 
monial, in regard to the rubrics of the Prayer 
Book ; we think there is. What we do say, and 
say very emphatically, is, that individuals are 
not at liberty to introduce developments on 
their own private authority. We must wait 
till the English Church takes the initiative; 
and not take the law into our own hands, and 
so abandon the Catholic principle of obedience 
and conformity to lawful authority. The 
thirty-fourth Article speaks very plainly on 
this matter; "Whosoever through his private 
judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly 
break the traditions and ceremonies of the 
Church, which be ordained and approved by 
common authority, ought to be rebuked 
openly, as he that offendeth against the 
common order of the Church." But whilst 
we desire a richer ceremonial, nevertheless it 
is true to say, that the services of the Book of 
Common Prayer, conducted in strict accord 
with the present rubrics in general, and with 
the accessories or ornaments enjoined by the 
Ornaments Rubric in particular, are not want- 
ing in extreme dignity. Even as things are, we 
need not be ashamed of our lot in regard to 
ceremonial. The shame only comes in when 
the directions of the rubrics are disregarded, 
whether by way of subtraction or addition. 
Surely, there is great cause for thankfulness, 
that the Church of England, as far as the 



y Google 



176 The Altar-Lights. 

ornaments of the church and clergy are con- 
cerned, appeals to the best period — the period 
untouched by the Pagan renaissance, which 
has so greatly degraded the ceremonial of the 
Roman Church during the last three centuries. 

I. 
As an instance of the growth of ceremonial 
in the Roman Church, we may take the subject 
of the altar-lights. Most of us, from what we 
have so often seen abroad, are familiar enough 
with the general appearance of a modern 
Roman altar. And this familiarity, strange to 
say, is not confined to those who have been 
fortunate enough to travel on the continent, 
and who have never been inside a Roman 
Catholic chapel at home : for the Roman altar, 
with all its adjuncts, has been only too faith- 
fully copied in some English churches within 
the last fifty years or thereabouts. Prominent 
amongst the ornaments of the high altar of 
a Roman church, are the six candlesticks 
and candles, standing upon a shelf, and 
placed three on either side of the crucifix. If 
we enquire when these six lights were first 
introduced into the Roman churches, the 
answer seems to be, that they were first 
ordered in Christopher Marcellus* Rituum 
Ecclesiasticorum Libvi tres (which was published 
at Venice in 1516'), for masses celebrated by 

» This profoundly interesting work was the immediate 
precursor of the celebrated Caremoniale Episcoporum^ 



y Google 



The Altar-Lights. I'j'j 

a cardinal or prelate ; and they seem to have 
been originated by one John Burchardt, of 
Strassburg, a man conspicuously pagan in 
his ideas. It is to Burchardt, that much of 
the elaboration of Roman ceremonial in the 
sixteenth century is attributable.^ 

In the Caremoniale Episcoporum of Clement 
VIII., who was pope from 1592 to 1605, six 
lights (three on either side of the cross, 
graduating in height) are shown on the altar- 

which appeared in 1600. Marcellus' Rituum EccUs, 
has, lib. iii. sect. v. cap. v. fol. cxl., the following directions de^ 
luminaribus in capella Papa, "Super altare, cum divina 
peraguntur, sive Cardinalis, sive alius prselatus celebret, 
candelabra sex super altare, super credentiam vero duo cum 
luminaribus semper habentur: ad Evangelium luminaria 
duo, ad elevationem Sacramenti funalia quatuor, super can- 
cellos capelbe, si Cardinalis celebrat, sex, si alius praelatus, 
quatuor funalia ardent. Si Papa celebrat, super altare 
candelabra septem ardent, super credentiam duo, ad 
Evangelium Latinum septem, ad Evangelium Grecum duo, 
ad elevationem Sacramenti funalia octo, super cancellos 
octo. Ad supplicationes Papales semper candelabra septem. 
Quando Papa non est prsesens, duo candelabra ardent." 
Marcellus' work represents a use about twenty-five years 
earlier than 15 16. It may here be said, that the real author 
of the Rituum Ecclesiasticorutn is Augustinus Patricius ; 
and that Christopher Marcellus is but the editor. 

z Burchardt was not only the all-powerful Master of 
Ceremonies to pope Alexander vi., at a critical period in 
liturgical history, but he was also the author of the Ordo 
MisscB of 150a, which was issued with the approbation of 
that pontiff. This work contains the first clear statement of 
a number of striking changes in the ceremonial of the mass, 
nearly all of which were subsequently incorporated in the 
Missale Romanum of pope Pius V., in 1570, and which 
remain to this day. In his Ordo Missa, Burchardt speaks 
of the lights on the altar, without naming their number. 
The Ordo Missa is printed in Cochleus, Speculum Missa, 
Venice, 1572. 



y Google 



178 The Altar 'Lights. 

shelf in most of the many illustrations of the 
edition published at Paris in 1633. When 
the bishop himself is celebrant, seven lights 
are ordered — " Celebrante vero episcopo, 
candelabra septem super altari ponantur, quo 
casu crux non in medio illorum, sed ante 
altius candelabrum in medio cereorum positum 
locabitur." ^ " When the bishop celebrates, let 
seven candlesticks be placed upon the altar, in 
which case the cross shall not be set in the 
midst of them, but in front of the highest 
candlestick, which is placed in the midst of the 
candles." « 

The origin of the six lights now commonly 
seen upon the high altar of a Roman church, 

I Car, Episc, lib. i. cap. xii. p. 69, Paris, 1633. 

' Catalan!, in commenting on this direction, writes thus : 
** Cur celebrante episcopo septem candelabra cum totidem 
cereis accensis in altari adhibeantur, ait memoratus Macrius, 
verbo Candela^ alludere eum ritum ad septem ilia candelabra, 
quae S. Johannes vidit in sua Apocalypsi cap. i, et ad 
denotandum quod episcopus septem sancti Spiritus donis 
per ipsa candelabra significatis ornari debeat. . . . Sane 
Crassus lib. i. cap. xxvi. : ' Convenienter,' ait, ' per patres 
nostros institutum est, ut super altari celebrante episcopo, 
si commode poni possunt, septem luminaria sequalia tantum 
septem planetales stellse apponantur; sin autem sex omnino, 
et non plures quam septem, nee pauciores quam sex.* " — 
Catalani, Commentary on Car, Episc, Lib. i. cap. xii. § 12. 
Parisiis, i860, tom. i. p. 254. From Catalani's Commentary^ 
it will be observed that he does not there trace the origin of 
the seven or six lights further back than the De Caremontis 
Cardinalium et Episcoporum of Paris de Crassus, which 
appeared in the year 1564 at Venice. But he also comments 
on another work, frequently referred to in these pages (the 
Rituum EccUsiasticorum of C. Marcellus, which appeared 
in the year 15 16 at Venice), in which the seven or six lights 
are named. See footnote, p. 177, above. 



y Google 



The Altar-Lights. 179 

required by the Carsmoniale Episcoporum, is 
somewhat obscure. The most probable ex- 
planation of their origin is as follows. In the 
eighth century it was the custom to carry the 
emperor's picture escorted with lights and 
incense,* and very naturally lights became 
part of the insignia of the pope and the 
bishops. In Ordo Romanus i.» which dates 
from the beginning of the eighth century, 
we read, "Tunc subdiaconus sequens cum 
thumiamaterio procedit ante pontificem, mittens 
incensum; et septem acolythi iUius regionis, 
cujus dies fuerit, portantes septem cereostata 
accensa praecedunt ante pontificem usque ante 
altare.' ' * " Then the subdeacon, following with 
a censer sending forth incense, advances in 
front of the pope ; and seven acolytes of that 
district, whose day it is, carrying seven 
candlesticks with candles lighted, go before 
the pope until he arrives in front of the 



' Labbe-Cossart, Concilia (ed. 1729), viii. p. 705. See 
Mr. F. E. Brightman's article on ByMantine Imperial 
Coronations^ in The Journal of Theological Studies, April, 
1901. Vol. ii. No. 7. p. 365 note i. 

' Mabillon, Museum Italicum^ Vol. ii. p. 8. Also in an 
early Ordo Romanus^ printed in Duchesne's Orgines du Culie 
Chriiien^ 2^ ed. pp. 440, 441, the following direction as 
to lights is given, <*Deinde oblationarius inluminat duos 
cereos ante secretario pro luminaria pontificis, quod est 
consuetudo omni tempore, et antecsedit ante pontificem, et 

gmit eos retro altare, in duo candelabra, dextra levaque. 
einde illuminant acolithi cereostata ante secrarium et 
segreditur pontifex de secrario cum diaconibus, tenentes eum 
duo dextra levaque, et vii cereostata procaedunt ante eum 
et subdiaconus." 



y Google 



i8o The Altar-Lights. 

altar.' The earliest Roman Ordines, thus bear 
witness to the custom of escorting the pope 
to the altar accompanied by seven torch- 
bearers, whenever he performed any sacred 
function. The episcopal ceremonial was 
evidently borrowed from, and modelled upon 
that of the Roman Court ; and for that reason 
seven lighted candles are still placed upon the 
altar, when a bishop celebrates pontifically. 
It seems that when the bishop was absent one 
candle was withdrawn, leaving but six upon 
the altar.' 

It is to be noted that the practice of placing 
lights on the altar is not ancient ; for it appears 
that for the first nine centuries the lights were 
placed on the ground : and they were not kept 
burning throughout the Mass, as the old Roman 
Ordines abundantly testify .3 



» On the origin of the number seven in this matter, Mayer 
{Explicatio Cceremoniarum Ecclesiasticarumy Part i. cap. 3. 
p. 28. Tugii, 1737) has, *' Septenarius autem numerus can- 
delabrorum aut cereorum, qui in missa tantum pontificali 
remansit, ortus est ex septem acolythis regionariis, qui 
pontifici celebranti Romse assistebant." 

■ Father Thurston, writing in The Months July, 1896, p. 
374, advances this, not as a certain but as a reasonably 
probable conclusion. 

3 ** Septem igitur ilia candelabra, seu cereostata, cjuae ab 
acolythis regionariis in processione missse pontificalis prse- 
ferebantur, jam non in altari collocabantur, neque accensa 
per totam missam tenebantur, sed post cantatum Kyrie 
eUisoHy in pavimento ordinatim statuebantur, et vetustiores 
Romani Ordines nos docent, quorum loca descripsit 
Georgius in suo opere, De Liturgia Romani Pontificis^ torn 
2. lib 3. cap 2., ubi etiam scite observat, quod licet ex 
Romanis Ordinibus vetustioribus, erui possit, per novem 



y Google 



The Altar-Lights. i8i 

Mr. H. W. Brewer, in The Month,^ remarks, 
" When in England the Blessed Sacrament, in 
its *cupa,' or 'pyx,' was lowered on to the altar, 
probably the four * serges ' were also let down, 
and then, with the two candles already upon 
the altar, at High Mass, there would have 
been six candles on the altar ; and the question 
suggests itself, do not the two candles pertain 
to the crucifix, and the other four to the 
Blessed Sacrament ? " Mr. Brewer, however, 
gives no evidence in support of this theory, 
and the former explanation of the origin of 
the six lights is far more reasonable and 
probable. 

If we go back to the beginning of the 
thirteenth century, we find that, whilst seven 
candles were carried before the pope on great 
occasions, as we have already said,* but two 



priora ssecula candelabra fuisse altari imposita, certum tamen 
est, circum altaria, luminaria, lucernasque, oleo, et lychnis 
succensa, atque cerea, funalia sseculo Christ! iv. adhiberi 
consuevisse diu noctuque micantia.*' — Catalani, Sacrarum 
Caremoniarum, Lib. iii. tit. v. cap. 5. p. 397. Romse, 
1751. 

** Lights on the altar," say Gasquet and Bishop {Edward 
vu and the Book of Common Prayer^ London 1890. Ch. iv. 
p. 59, note), **are of late medieval introduction, though the 
pictured representation of a single candle on the altar may 
be found in the twelfth and perhaps the eleventh century." 

I Feb. 1897, p. 170. 

' " £t ideo prseferuntur duo lumina cum incenso, quia lex 
et prophetse cum psalmis Christi pronuntiaverunt adventum. 
... In majoribus autem solemnitatibus septem candelabra 
coram pontifice deferuntur." — Innocent iii. De Sacra Aliaris 
Mysterioy lib. ii. cap. viii., de cereis et incenso. Innocent 
iii. was pope from 1 198 to 12 16. 



y Google 



1 82 The Altar- Lights. 

lights were placed upon the altar.* From the 
footnote below, it will be be seen that, at the 
close of the twelfth, or beginning of the thir- 
teenth century, considerable importance was 
attached to the two altar-lights, as their symbolic 
meaning shows. Had there been more than 
two, this meaning would have been destroyed. 
The two candles right and left of the altar- 
cross were then held to signify the joy of the 
two peoples, Jewish and Gentile, at the 
nativity of Christ. The altar-cross standing 
between the two candlesticks was held to 
signify Christ, the chief corner stone "who 
hath made both (peoples) one,'* binding the 
two walls of the Catholic temple of humanity 
into one whole. 
Durandus, who was born at Puy-moisson, in 

z "Ad significandum itaque gaudiam duorum populorum, 
de natiritate Christ! Isetantium, in coraibus altaris duo 
sunt constituta candelabra, quae mediante cruce, faculas 
ferunt accensas. Angelus enim pastoribus inquit : Annuntio 
vobis gaudium magnum^ quod erit omni populo^ quia natus 
est vobis Sahfotor. Hie est verus Isaac, qui risus interpre- 
tatur (Gen. xxi.)* Lumen autem candelabri, fides est 
populi ; nam ad Judaicum populam inquit propheta : Surge, 
illuminare^ Hierusalem, quia venit lumen iuum, et gloria 
Domini super te orta est (Isai. Ix.). Ad populum vero 
Gentilem didt apostolus: Eratis aliquando tenebra, nunc 
autem lux in Domino (Ephes. v.). Nam et in ortu Christi 
nova Stella magis apparuit, secundum vaticinium Balaam : 
Orietur, inquit, Stella ex Jacob, et consurget virga ex 
Israel (Num. xxiv.). Inter duo candelabra in altari crux 
collocatur media, quoniam inter duos populos Christus in 
Ecclesia mediator existit, lapis angularis, qui fecit utraque 
unum. Ad quem pastores a Judsea, et magi ab Oriente 
venerunt." — Innocent iii. De Sacro Altaris Mysterio^ lib. ii. 
cap. xxi. 



y Google 



The Altar-Lights. 183 

Provence, about the year 1220, four years after 
the death of Innocent III. (whose testimony to 
the two altar-lights, we have just given*), 
became bishop of Mende in 1286. While in 
this post, and resident at Rome (for he did not 
personally visit his diocese till 1291), he 
finished his great work. Rationale Divinorum 
Officiorum, which was published, as Martene 
observes, before 1295." Thus, writing about 
a century later than Innocent III., Durandus 
says, '< In cornibus altaris duo sunt candelabra 
constituta, ad significandum gaudium duorum 
populorum de Christi nativitate letantium : 
quae candelabra mediante cruce faculas ferunt 
accensas. Angelus enim inquit pastoribus, 
* Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum, quod erit 
omni populo, quia natus est nobis hodie 
Salvator mundi.' Hie est verus Isaac, qui 
risus interpretatur. Lumen enim candelabri 
fides est populi; nam ad Judaicum populum 
inquit propheta, 'Surge, illuminare, Hierusalem, 
quia venit lumen tuum, et gloria Domini super 
te orta est.' Ad populum vero Gentilem dicit 
apostolus, < Eratis aliquando tenebrae ; nunc 
autem lux in Domino.' Nam in ortu Christi 
nova Stella magis apparuit, secundum vati- 
cinium Balaam, *Orietur,' inquit, * Stella ex 
Jacob, et consurget virga ex Israel.' . . • Inter 
duo candelabra crux in altari media collocatur: 

X See footnote, p. 182. 

» See The Symbolism of Churches^ Trans. Neale and 
Webb, Preface, p. ix. Leeds, 1843. 



y Google 



184 The Altar-Lights. 

quoniam inter duos populos Christus in Bcclesia 
mediator existit. Ipse enim est lapis angularis, 
qui fecit utraque unum ; ad quern pastores a 
Judaea, et magi ab oriente venerunt."* '*At 
the horns of the altar two candlesticks are 
placed to signify the joy of Jews and Gentiles 
at the nativity of Christ : which candle- 
sticks, by means of a flint, have their 
wicks lighted. For the angel saith to the 
shepherds, * I bring you good tidings of great 
joy, which shall be to all people : for to you is 
born this day the Saviour of the world.* He 
is the true Isaac, which being interpreted is 
* laughter.' Now, the light of the candlestick 
is the faith of the people. For to the Jewish 
people saith the prophet, * Arise, shine, for thy 
light is come: and the glory of the Lord is 
risen upon thee.' But to the Gentiles the 
apostle saith, *Ye were sometimes darkness, 
but are now light in the Lord.' For before the 
birth of Christ a new star appeared to the 
wise men, according to the prophecy of 
Balaam, * There shall rise,' saith he, < a star 
out of Jacob, and a sceptre out of Israel.' . . . 
Between the two candlesticks the cross is 
placed on the altar: because Christ standeth 
in the Church, the mediator between the two 
peoples. For He is the corner-stone, *who 
hath made both one ; ' to whom the shepherds 
came from Judaea, and the wise men from the 
East." 

X Rationale^ lib i. cap. iii. 



y Google 



The Altar-Lights. 185 

From this quotation, it will be seen that 
Durandus is simply repeating what Innocent 
III. had said, a hundred years before.* We 
may therefore certainly conclude that the 
custom of placing two lights, and two only, 
upon the altar, was the general practice at the 
beginning of the second half of the middle 
ages. If we go back earlier, we find a similar 
rule authorized. As early as the year 847, 
Leo IV. ordered "Let no one sing (mass) 
without a light, without an amice, without an 
albe. ..." * And when we come down later, 
we find the same usage in vogue in England. 
In the Constitutions of Archbishop Walter 
Reynolds, a.d. 1322, we read, ** NuUus clericus 
permittatur ministrare in officio altaris, nisi 
indutus sit superpellicio, et tempore quo 
missarum solennia peraguntur, accendantur 
duae candelae, vel ad minus una." 3 «« No 
clerk is allowed to serve in the ministry of 
the altar, unless he is vested in a surplice, and 
at the time when the solemnities of the Mass 
are in progress, two candles shall be lighted, 
or at least one." Thus, we have testimony of 
the first order, that, from at least 847 until 
1322, — that is, for five out of the seven centuries 
included in the middle ages, — not more than 
two lights were placed upon the altar. It is to 

z See footnote, p. 182. 

» de Cura Pastorali, Labb. torn. viii. col. 33. 



cap. 



3 Gibson, Codex Juris Ecclesiastici Anglicani^ Tit. xx. 
p. vi. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1761. 

Google 



1 86 The Altar 'Lights. 

this earlier half of the middle ages that we do 
well to look for ceremonial perfection. 

II. 

When we approach the age next preceding 
the Reformation, we find the same state of 
things in regard to the altar lights. Pugin 
tells us, that " till the sixteenth century, and 
even later, the usual number of altar-candle- 
sticks was two, one on either side of the 
cross." * In The Exposition of the Mass, a later 
addition to Voragine*s Legenda Aurea^ edited by 
Mr. W. H. Frere, and recently published by 
the Alcuin Club, is a series of fine illustrations 
reproduced from the French MS., now in the 
Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge. In the 
illustrations, two altars are depicted having 
two candlesticks, and nine with but one candle- 
stick. The date of this MS. is about 1480, 
and the illustrations represent altars in the 
North of France at that time. In an edition 
of the Legenda Aurea, printed at Lyons in i486, 
is a woodcut representing St. Lupus com- 
municating King Clothair ; the altar has on it 

I Glossary of Ecclesiastical Omatrunt^ p. 47, sub * Candle- 
sticks.' 3rd ed. London, 1868. Pugin adds, "As is 
evident from iUuminations and inventories, the custom 
of placing only two candles on the altar was by no 
means peculiar to the English Church. The altars depicted 
in early Italian frescoes, and figured in D'Agincourt's 
Histoire de VArt, have only two candlesticks ; and in a 
work entitled Der weise Konig^ full of wood-cuts, by Hans 
Burgmaier, the altar, where the pope himself is celebrating, 
is only furnished with two candlesticks." 



y Google 



The Altar-Lights. 187 

two small candlesticks. In Dr. Wickham 
Legg's paper, On Some Ancient Liturgical Customs 
now falling into Disuse^ are given five plates, 
showing altars in the years 1489, 1516, 1520, 
1665; i^ ®2ich of which two lights only are 
depicted. One of these illustrations shows the 
pope at the altar. John Myrc, in his Instructions 
to Parish Priests,* written probably about 1400- 
1450, speaks of but one light on the altar : 

Look that thy candle of wax it be, 
And set her, so that thou her see, 
On the left half of thine altar. 

Thomas Becon, carries the usage of one altar- 
light down to Queen Mary's reign : " And 
because like politic and wise men ye will not 
stumble in your doings, but the better see what 
ye shall speak, ye have a candle lighted, though 
the day be never so fair, and the sun shine 
never so bright." At the conclusion of the 
Service, he says, " Ye put out the candle." 3 
As another instance (and such might be greatly 
multiplied) of the use of not more than two 
altar-lights up to the eve of the Reformation 
in England, we have the statement made in 
The Rites and Customs of the Monastical Church 
of Durham,^ of the practice in that church 
before the suppression of the Monasteries by 
Henry VIII. " There was perteininge to the 

I St, PauVs EceUs. Soc, Trans, Vol. ii. 
« E. E. T. Soc, p. 58. 

3 The Displaying of the Popish Mass, Works iii. p. 257, 
282. Parker Soc. * p. 8. Surtees Soc 



y Google 



i88 The Altar-Lights. 

high altar two silver double-gilded candlesticks 
for two tapers, very finely wrought," and ** other 
two silver candlesticks for everye dayes service, 
parcell gilt." The above quotation shows, 
that not only were there never more than two 
lights even upon the high altar at Durham, but 
that the mere fact of a church possessing four 
candlesticks or more, does not prove that they 
were all set upon the altar on the same occasion. 
We may be quite certain that, if a rich church 
like that at Durham had but two candlesticks 
on the altar, parish churches at the same date 
had not more. When, in the seventeenth 
century. Bishop Cosin gave the two fine silver 
candlesticks which now stand upon the altar 
at Durham, he simply continued the old pre- 
Reformation usage. If Cosin had looked to the 
Roman Church as his model, he would have 
found six candlesticks standing on a shelf or 
grading at that time. It is clear then, that he 
did not interpret the Ornaments Rubric as 
meaning that the current Roman number and 
arrangement of ornaments is to be followed in 
the English churches. 

Mr. Cuthbert Atchley, in his exhaustive 
monograph, The Ceremonial Use of Lights in the 
Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth,^ 
has proved up to the hilt, that the English 
custom, in the period immediately preceding 
the year to which the Ornaments Rubric refers, 

' Printed in Sorne Principles and Services of the Prayer 
Book, historically considered, Rivingtons, 1899. 



y Google 



The Altar-Lights. 189 

was to place not more than two candles on the 
altar. He gives the following, amongst other 
examples, in support thereof. 

At St. Ewen's, Bristol, in 1455 there were 
''two candlesticks of latten for the high 
altar." ^ 

At Wickham, one of the prebendal churches 
of St. Paul's Cathedral, the visitors found in 
1458, '< two candlesticks of latten standing 
before the altar, and two candlesticks standing 
upon the altar." « 

In 1466, the Church of St. Stephen, Coleman 
Street, London, had '' a pair of candlesticks to 
set on the high altar." 3 

At Wing, Bucks, they had in 1527, " two 
standards of latten for the high altar ; and two 
small latten candlesticks for the same." ^ 

The White Monks of Delacres, StaflFordshire, 
at the dissolution of their house in 1538, had 
'' two candlesticks of latten on the altar." 5 As 
we have already seen, this was the case at 
Durham at the same date. 

At St. Margaret's, Westminster, in 1549, the 
second year of Edward VI., there were " two 
candlesticks of silver, parcel gilt, weighing 45 
ounces, and a candlestick for the high altar, 

X Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaol. Soc, Trans, 1890- 
91 ; XV. 152. 

« Visitation of Churches belonging to St, PauPs CcUhedral^ 
Camden Soc 1895 ; p. 95. 

3 Archaologiay 1887 ; i. 34. 

4 Ibid. 1855 ; xxxvi. 222. 

5 Ibid. 1866; xliii. 215. 



y Google 



igo The Altar-Lights, 

of copper and gilt."' This latter, as at 
Durham, may have been for " every day 
service." » 

This usage, of not placing more than two 
lights on the altar, prevailed in the second 
year of King Edward VI. If there were other 
lights around the altar according to the size 
and wealth of the church, on the altar there 
were but two at the most. The inference is 
irresistible, namely, that more than two lights 
on the altar can only be used in disregard of the 
directions of the Ornaments Rubric.3 More- 
over, as a lesser consideration, though a not 
unimportant one, the use of but two lighted 
candles on the altar enables us still to claim 
the most beautiful symbolic meaning, given 
centuries ago by Innocent III. and Durandus, 
to which we have referred in the course of this 
article. 



X Walcott, The History of the Parish Church of St. 
Margaret^ in Westminster, 1847, pp. 68, 69. 

» See p. 188. 

3 «« We know now that not more than two lights were set on 
the altar in the second year of the reign of Edward vi. ; and, 
if we are not lawless, we shall not have any more now." — 
Atchley, The Ceremonial Use of Lights in the Second Year 
of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth, in ** Some Prin- 
ciples and Services of the Prayer Book," p. 38, Rivingtons, 
1 099. In the same work, Mr. Comper, in an article upon 
The English Altar and its Surroundings, pp. 68, ff., comes 
to the same conclusion as Mr. Atchley. Both these writers 
speak with the authority belonging to men who have only 
given an impartial verdict after most exhaustive research. 



y Google 



The Altar-Lights. 191 



III. 
The use of six lights on the altar of an 
English church is obviously a wide departure 
from old English and medieval precedent, in 
favour of a servile copying of modern Roman 
custom. The Roman rubrics as to the number 
of lights are as follows: ** Super altare coUocetur 
crux in medio, et candelabra saltem duo cum 
candelis accensis hinc, et inde in utroque ejus 
latere." ' ** Upon the altar a cross shall be 
placed in the centre, and at least two candle- 
sticks with lighted candles in corresponding 
places on each side of it." This order is, in 
practice, interpreted to direct, that ** Two, and 
not more than two, candles may be lighted at 
a priest's Low Mass, unless Mass be said for 
the parish, or for a convent, or on one of the 
greater solemnities, when four candles may be 
used (plus quam duo, according to a decree of 
the Congregation of Sacred Rites ; Manuale^ n. 
377). Six candles are lighted at High Mass, 
seven at the Mass of a bishop." ' 

' Rubricct generaUs Missalisy xx. i. 

' Addis and Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary ^ 1893, sub 
* Candles and Lights,' p. ill. Compare with this, however, 
Falise, Cirimonial Romain^ p. 348, § 9, ''II est d'ailleurs 
d^fendu aux prStres, aux cur^s, pour la messe paroissiale, 
rnSme aux yicaires g^n^raux, d'employer quatre chandeliers 
pour leurs messes : cela n'est permis qu'aux ^v6ques, aux 
cardinaux, et aussi aux abb^ lorsqu'ils c^^brent pontificale- 
ment— Congr^ation des Rites." 

The Roman rules as to candles on the altar are Tery 
confusing. We believe that we are right in saying, that it is 



y Google 



192 The Altar 'Lights. 

We conclude this essay by quoting the words 
of an article already referred to in the fore- 
going pages. ** The ceremonialists of a few 
years ago made a great mistake in introducing 
the custom of placing six lights on the altar (or 
rather on the gradin) ; it is a mistake, whether 
looked at from a legal, or historical, or politic, 
or aesthetic, point of view. If we are to return 
to mediaeval ceremonial, the six lights on the 
altar must be the first things to be laid 
aside." ^ 



only by custom that a priest is allowed six lights at high 
mass ; and that the rule really is, seven lights for a bishop 
when celebrating pontifical high mass in his own diocese ; 
six lights for a bishop when celebrating high mass otherwise ; 
four lights for a priest's high mass, or a bishop's low mass ; 
two lights for a priest's low mass. 

I Mediaval Ceremonial^ The Ch. Quar. Review, Jan. 1900. 
Vol. xlix. pp. 405, 406. 



y Google 



The Altar-Lights. 193 

Note I.— "As regards the rule of the English Church 
concerning the limitation of the altar-lights to two, it is 
sometimes stated that the exceptions have more to be said 
in their &vour, at least as illustrating cathedral use, than is 
always allowed ; and it is said that in large and important 
churches two or four extra lights may lawniUy be placed on 
the altar. But were it much more clear than it is that the 
rules for secular cathedral churches, such as Lincoln, 
Chichester, and Salisbury, absolutely prove that more than 
two candles, the number varying according to the rank of 
the day, were in use upon the high altars of these churches, 
not only in the early thirteenth century, the date of their 
consuetudinaries, but in 1548, it gives us no authority for the 
introduction of more than two lights upon any altars but 
those of the secular cathedral churches in question. . . . The 
rule binding other churches, no matter what their size or 
wealth, is not touched by these examples; and it would 
seem that the only exceptions known in favour of many 
lights upon the altar are those of the chapels royal upon 
state occasions. And yet it cannot be pleaded that the 
limitation of the number of the altar lights in other cases 
was due to poverty, when, for instance, we bear in mind the 
minute particulars given in The Rites of Durham, Even 
that vast and wealthy church had never more than two 
candlesticks upon the high altar at one time, although 
possessing two pairs of varying richness for separate usej 
according to the rank of the day (See Rites of Durham^ 
Surtees Soc. p. 8). It was, at least as far as monastical and 
parish churches are concerned, whether these churches were 
great or small, double gilding and very fine workmanship 
which marked the difference between the feast day and the 
work day, between the high altar and other altars, between 
a wealthy church and a poor one ; and not an increase in the 
number of the candlesticks.*' — J. N. Comper, The Reason- 
ableness of the Ornaments Rubric^ etc^ St. Paul's Eccles. 
Soc. Transactions, Vol. iv. pp. 75, 76. 



Note II. — ** There is a curious legend, met with nearly 
everywhere, that the Privy Council has forbidden the setting 
of the candlesticks directly on the altar, without the inter- 
vention of a shelf. In the Report, however, of the 
Committee of the Alcuin Club against the lawfulness of 



y Google 



194 ^^ AUarLighls, 

the gradto, iYuj mention the opinion of Sir Walter Philli- 
more, which it may be hoped will finally lay the ghost to 
rest. He fays; ' So Coort has decided that it b ill^al to 
pot candlesticks directly on the fmmsa ' ( Alcnin Clab Tracts, 
u 64). — Medugval Ctremanial, The Ch. Qoar. Review, Jan. 
1900. VoU xlix. pp. 406, 407, n. 



y Google 



Zbe SUften CMlke^Vcii 



y Google 



Archbishop Benson's interpretation of the dictum, 
** Omission is not prohibition/* pp. 197, 198; which 
excludes the use of the silken chalice-veil, pp. 198, 
199. Mr. St. John Hope's statement, p. 199. Mr. 
Cuthbert Atchley's opinion, pp. 200 — 202. The 
offertory-veil, p. 203. The corporas, pp. 204 — 206. 
Roman rules, pp. 206. The silken chalice-veil 
modern in the Roman Church, pp. 207, 208; its 
probable origin traced, pp. 208 — 212. The silken 
chalice-veil unauthorised in the English Church, p. 
213. The use of the offertory- veil, ibid. 



y Google 



IX. 
THE SILKEN CHALICE- VEIL. 

IN a former article, we made some remarks 
upon the dictum, ** Omission is not pro- 
hibition." We suggested that this dictum is 
one which has certain well defined limitations. 
Without these limitations, it may be used to 
justify all manner of ceremonial irregularities. 
In the Lincoln Judgment, Archbishop Benson 
alluded to the dictum, <' Omission is not pro- 
hibition," in treating of the use of the sign of 
the cross in giving the absolution and the 
benediction. His words were, *« The argu- 
ment that the ' omission of a direction is not a 
prohibition,' has no meaning except in cases 
where it is also shewn that something has been 
omitted. To give it force in this case, it must 
appear at the least that this gesture was pre- 
scribed in the English Church up to the time 
of the Reformation, and that her bishops and 
clergy continued to use it in giving the absolu- 
tion or benediction, as it were traditionally 
and without correction. Before the very word 
< omission' becomes applicable or requires to 
be considered at all, it must at least be shewn, 
in order to uphold a ceremonial practice in the 



y Google 



198 The Silken Chalice- Veil. 

English Church Service, that the practice is one 
continued from our own earlier services. An 
observance, however widespread, if borrowed 
and introduced from foreign usages, or from a 
liturgy or rubric unknown to this country, can- 
not be treated as « omitted.* " * We may put 
Archbishop Benson's opinion into other words, 
and say, If an ornament or a gesture can be 
proved to have existed in the pre- Reformation 
Church in England, there is prima facie ground 
for enquiring whether or not it has been abolish- 
ed by authority. If it has not been abolished, 
then there may be good reasons for retaining 
and continuing such ornament or ceremony. 
But if it was unknown to the ancient Church 
of England, there is no need for further enquiry: 
the thing is an innovation, and to be shunned 
on the score of lack of authority. Archbishop 
Benson's judgment in this particular was pre- 
eminently sane, and it is worthy of careful 
attention. 

I. 
There is a certain ornament or vesture of 
the church which, in recent years, has been 
brought into use in a multitude of English 
churches, which is excluded according to 
Archbishop's Benson's interpretation of the 
dictum, ** Omission is not prohibition." We 
refer to the square veil of silk, used to cover 

« The Bishop of Lincoln* s Case, p. 172. Roscoe, Clowes 
and Sons, Lond. 1891. 



y Google 



The Silken Chalice-VeiL 199 

the sacred vessels when carried in and out of 
the church, commonly called the chalice- veil. 
This silken veil is used as we have said, and 
also for covering the chalice and paten until 
the offertory. 

In order to establish the legality of the silken 
chalice-veil, it is necessary to enquire if it was 
in use in this Church of England during the 
year to which the Ornaments Rubric directs 
us, — the second year of King Edward VI. If 
it was legalised in that year, it is allowed : if 
it cannot be shewn to have been legalised in 
that year, it is disallowed. The question before 
us is one of the many in which it is necessary 
to consult the antiquaries. The appeal of the 
Ornaments Rubric is to history, and not to 
sentiment. 

Mr. W. H. St. John Hope, who is well known 
for his wide acquaintance with English In- 
ventories, said recently, " After reading through 
hundreds and hundreds of English parish 
church inventories, I have no recollection of 
ever coming across such an ornament as the 
silken chalic^-veil of to-day."' This is very 
strong testimony, coming from such a source, 
and we cannot ignore its force. If the use of 
the silken chalice- veil had been common before 
the Reformation, it is quite impossible that it 
should have been omitted from the very many 
inventories of church goods to which we have 
access. Their silence is conclusive of the fact 
' The Church Timesy Feb. 16, 1900. 



y Google 



20O The Silken Chalice-Veil. 

that such a thing was not in use in the second 
year of King Edward VI.» 

In the Inventory of the Vestry in Westminster 
Abbey, taken in 1388, whilst there were ten 
corporas cases, all embroidered, there seem, 
however, to be no ornaments in the inventory 
that can be identified with a modem chalice- 
veil. The nearest approach to a doth that 
could be used for this purpose is the sudarium, 
with which the elements were covered when 
they were carried to the altar, and in which the 
paten was wrapped when held by the sub- 
deacon during the Canon. When we consider 
the extraordinary number of vestures named in 
this Inventory in great detail, the absence of 
any mention of chalice-veils is very significant.' 

Mr. Cuthbert Atchley, whose extensive 
knowledge of ceremonial matters entitles him 
to be heard, has lately said, << The Ornaments 
Rubric requires the use of such ornaments as 
were in this Church of England in 2 Ed. VI. 
The only veils which are mentioned by rubrics 
in connection with the sacred vessels are the 
pair of corporasses and an offertorium or patener's 
veil. The rules in vogue then with regard to 
the material of the corporas are as follows : — 

» The writer was recently informed, that two Jesuit 
&thers, after some search, were not a little astonished at 
finding no evidence for the silken veil in England before the 
year 1549. They appealed to an eminent English antiquary, 
who was only able to say that the English antiquaries had 
arrived at the same result. 

* See Archceologiai 1890. Vol. Hi. part I. p. 202. 



y Google 



The Silken Chalice-Veil. 201 

It may not be silken cloth, nor coloured, but 
must be of pure linen, made of flax, and 
hallowed by a bishop.^ To which Lindewode 
adds, that it must not be starched, nor have 
anything put into it to make it stand stiff over 
the chalice; but of pure linen without the 
admixture of anything else, whether of greater 
or of less value.* From all of which it is evident 
that the corporas might only be of linen, and 
not of silk. The regulations as to the material 
of the corporas were included among those 
canons, constitutions, ordinances, etc., that 
were invigorated with the force of statute law 
by Henry VI I L The suggestion that the 
chalice- veil of modem Roman use is evolved 
from the patener's veil is hardly tenable. That 
was a sudarium^ to protect the chalice and paten 

I This rule is usually referred to Eosebiusand Sylvester, 
Deer. iii. de Ck>ns. Di. i. cap. 46. It runs as follows, 
<*Consulto omnium statuimus, ut sacrificium altarisnon in 
serico panno, aut tincto quisquam celebrare presumat : sed 
in puro linteo ab episcopo consecrato, terreno scilicet lino 
procreato, atque contesto : sicut corpus Domini nostri Jesu 
Christi in sindone linea munda sepultum fuit." 

' " Corporalia non debent fieri ex serico, sed solum ex 
panno lineo puro terreno ab episcopo consecrato. Nee 
debet confici neque benedici CorporaU de panno misso in 
confectionem farinse, vel alterius rei ad hoc, quod stet rigidum 
super calicem ; sed erit de lino puro absque mixtione alterius 
rei, sive pretiosioris, sive vilioris." — Lindewode, ProvimiaU^ 
lib. iii. tit. 23. De celeb, miss. : cap. Linteamina, sub cor- 
poralia, Oxonise, 1679. col. 235. 

3 *< The sudanr was a scarf of silk or linen which was cast 
about the shoulaers, and in the ends of which the hands of 
those who carried certain objects ceremonially were muffled. 
In quires it was used by the patener or third minister, when he 
brought in the chalice and when he held up the paten. But 



y Google 



202 The Silken Chalice- Veil. 

from the moisture of the hands of the person 
carrying it ; and it was not used by the priest. 
The chalice- veil, on the contrary, is never 
used as a sudarium^ but is in use analagous to 



in parish churches its chief use was to carry the chrismatory 
at the solemn processions to the font at Easter. When 
not of linen, it seems to have usually been made of some 
old stuff of little worth." — Micklethwaite, The Ornaments 
of the Rubric^ p. 34. Alcuin Club Tracts, i. 

The Sarum directions were, that the offertorium^ or offer- 
tory veil, and the corporasses be placed on the chalice, and 
be carried in by the collet vested in alb and silk mantle. 
Later on, in the Service, the paten wrapped in the offer- 
torium is to be given to the collet to hold (Vide The Use of 
Saruntf Frere, i. 69, 79. ) At Lincoln, the epistoler brought 
in the chalice, holding it with a sudary. The gospeller and 
his fellow-deacons, after the Sanctus, carried in the paten 
wrapped in a sudary, and gave it to the epistoler to hold 
during the canon. (Vide Statutes of Lineoln Cathedral^ H. 
Bradshaw and Chr. Wordsworth, Vol. i. pp. 378, 380.) 
The sudarium and the offertorium were evidently identical, 
having no connection with the linen corporas. 

In the South Kensington Museum is an offertory veil, 
7792., of the fifteenth century, made of gold thread and 
velvet : it measures 14 feet 4 inches in length, by i foot 10 
inches in width. Another, 7799. , of later date, is of crimson 
velvet, measuring x i feet 2 inches in length, by i foot 10 
inches in width. Each of these offertory veils has a fringe 
of gold at the ends. (Vide Chambers, Divine Worship in 
En^land^ p. 274). See pp. 209, 210, note 3, later in this essay. 

In the Inventory of the Vestry in Westminster Abbey, 
taken in 1388, occurs, *' Item unus casus de panno rubio 
aureo cum duobus sudarijs de panno albo vocato tartaryn 
pro oblacione facienda et pro patena tenenda per predictum 
R.T. ad utramque missam assignatus." — Arcnotologia^ 1888. 
Vol. lii. part i. p. 270. Amongst the Lent stuff of the Dissolu- 
tion, were, ** Oon corporas case with corporaces. ij white 
sydaryes " (Invent. 1540. Ibid.) Here the distinction be- 
tween the corporas and the sudary is marked. The difference 
is again proved by consulting Dugdale's Inventory of St. 
Paufs Cathedral, a.d. 1295, pp. 216, 217. in which Cor- 
poralia and Offertoria are given under different headings. 



y Google 



The Silken Chalice-Veil, 203 

(and probably homogenous with) a corporas."* 
The modern silken chalice- veil is not used to 
protect the sacred vessels from the hands ; it is 
merely used to cover the vessels. It is in 
no sense to be confused with the sudarium, 
patener's veil, oflfertorium, or humeral veil : it 
is a di£ferent vesture, used for a different 
purpose, by a different minister. In the Roman 
Church to-day, the silken chalice-veil and the 
humeral veil are different ornaments. To show 
the distinction between the two ornaments, it 
is not necessary to go further than the Ritus 
servandus in celehratione Misses of the Roman 
Missal ; in which the humeral veil is distinctly 
ordered. <* Diaconus amovet calicem, si est in 
altari, vel si est in credentia, ut magis decet, 
accipit eum de manu subdiaconi, qui ilium 
cum patena, et hostia coopertum palla, et 
velo a coUo sibi pendente, manu sinistra 
tenens, et alterum manum superponens velo, 
ne aliquid decidat, de credentia detulit."' 
'' The deacon moves the chalice aside, if it is 
on the altar, or if it is on the credence, as is 
more seemly, receiving it from the hand of the 
subdeacon, who, with the paten and host, 
covered with the pall and with the veil hanging 
from his neck, holds it with his left hand, 
and placing the other hand upon the veil, lest 
anything fall, carries it from the credence." 

1 The Church Titnesy Feb. 23, 1900. 
' Ritus celeb. Miss. vii. 9. Missale Romanum^ Venice, 
1713. 



y Google 



204 The Silken Chalice-Veil. 

The ancient rule is^ as we have said, that the 
corporasses should be of pure white linen, and 
of no other fabric. The reason why the cor- 
poras should be of linen only, is beckuse it 
signifies the linen cloths in which our Saviour's 
body was wrapped in the tomb.' This rule 
that the corporas be only of linen is very 
ancient indeed. 

Originally, there was but one very large linen 
corporas, so large in fact, that it not only 
enveloped the altar in its ample folds, but also 
was turned up to cover the oblations.' In 
process of time, and for convenience sake, this 
ample corporal was divided into two — the 
larger half being used to consecrate upon as 
before, the smaller half being used to cover the 
chalice. This distinction is noted as early as 
about the year iioo, by St. Anselm, who says, 
** Whilst consecrating, some cover the chalice 
with the corporal, others with a folded cloth.'* 3 



I « Corporate crit candidum at^ue mundum, quia significat 
sidonem, in qua corpus Christi fiiit involutum. — Lindewode, 
Frovinciale^ lib. iii. tit 23, sub corporalia, 

* In describing the ceremonial of the early Roman Church, 
Mr. Bishop says, ** In those days a corporal was a cloth 
large enough to cover the altar. An acolyte stands holding 
the chalice with the corporal laid upon it; he hands the cor- 
poral to a deacon, who, with another deacon, mounts to the 
altar, one standing at either end ; the deacon begins to 
unfold the corporal, throws one end of it to the other 
deacon, and so they spread it out over the altar ; just what 
may be seen done any day in the laying of a table cloth." — 
Th$ Genius of the Roman RitOy p. 12. See the next essay 
on The Chalice-Pall. 

3 Opera^ 138. c. 4. 



y Google 



The Silkin Chalice-Veil. 205 

A similar distinction is made by Innocent IIL 
(1x98-1216), who says, " Duplex enim est palla, 
quae dicitur corporale^ una quam diaconus super 
altare totam extendit, altera quam super 
calicem plicatam imponit."' ''The cloth 
which is called the corporal is two-fold, one 
which the deacon entirely spreads upon the 
altar, the other which he places folded upon 
the chalice." Durandus, writing a century 
later, uses the same words.* Thenceforward 
this usage prevailed. This accounts for the 
fact, that, in the old inventories, we constantly 
find the corporasses named in pairs,^ which 
were kept folded up, when not in use, in a forel 
or burse.4 Whilst the burse was covered with 

I Dd Sturo AUaris Mystirio^ lib. ii. cap. 55. 
* Rationale^ lib. iv. cap. 29. 

3 The Constitutions of the Bishops of Worcester in 1226 
and 1240, required that in every church should be provided 
duo paria corporalium^ and the Synod of Exeter in 1287, 
ordained that in every church should be duo corporalia cum 
repositoriis (Wilkins, Cone, i. 623, 666, ii. 139). The 
repoiitorium^ or case wherein the corporasses were enclosed, 
when not in use, was richly embroidered, or adorned with 
precious stones ; it was termed likewise theca^ capsa^ bursa 
corporalium. Vide Promptorium Parvulorum^ p. 94 n. 
Camden Soc 

4 At St. Paul's Cathedral in 1295, ^^^r^ ^^'^ '^i^ capsa 
breudata cum corporalibus." This entry occurs four times. 
— Dugdale, pp. 216, 217. In the year 1485, there were at 
St. Margaret's, South wark, amongst other ornaments, '* A 
corporas cace of blacke clothe of gold, with blacke byrdes ther 
on, and with iij knoppes of perle thereon and the corperas. 
A case for a corperas of blew clothe of gold with the corperas. 
Seven casys for a corperas of dyuyrs sylkys with the cor- 
poras." — British Magazine^ 1848. Vol. xxxiii. p. 16. In 
1552, the sixth year of the reign of Edward vi., there were 
at Wycombe, Bueks, ** Item vij casis and xj corporas 



y Google 



2o6 The Silken Chalice- Veil, 

silk, velvet, or other rich material, embroidered 
back and front, the corporasses were always of 
pure linen, neither dyed nor coloured in any 
way.* If there were rare exceptions, this was 
the general rule. It is not by rare exceptions, 
but by the general rule, that we are to be 
guided. 

II. 
When we come to examine the rubrics of the 
Roman Missal, we find there, that the priest is 
directed to place over the sacred vessels a 

clothis : '* in 1 518, "Item iiij Corpaxes w*casys : " in 1547, 
** Item a masse booke w^ a corporas case and ij corporasses 
therein." — Records of Bucks, Vol. viii. No. 2, pp. 128, 142, 
144. 

In addition to the names for the burse, given in a 
previous note, it was also called corporctx ; e.g. ''the holie 
Corporax Cloth, which was within the corporcuc, wherewith 
Saint Cuthbert did cover the chalice, when he used to say 
masse."— J?i/^j of Durham, p. 20. Surtees Soc. Another 
name for the burse was corporal; e.g. At Pembroke College, 
Cambridge, after a list of eight or nine ' corporals ' of nch 
material, we read, " and all these have linen cloths within." 
—Hist. MSS. Comm. Rep. i. Appendix, 72. At St. 
Stephen's, Coleman St., there were in 1542^ " xj Corporis, 
and in cache of them a corporis clothe." — ArchcBologia, 1887. 
Vol. U pt. i. 48. 

In 1544, at Leverton, there was **payd for sylk for 
mekyng off on pursse for to here the sakarment in to seke 
forlke. vijd." {Arcficeologta, 1867. vol. xli. pt. ii. p. 356.) It 
seems that sometimes the Eucharist was enfolded in one 
of the corporasses, and carried thus in the burse to the 
sick. This explains the use of the word corporax, to denote 
the burse. 

z **Corporalem Pallam non de scrico aut de tincto peu 
operibus variato, sed solum de simplici albo panno lineo, 
fieri prohibemus, prsecipientes ut munda et bene composita 
et plicata est." — Ducange, sub voce. 2. PcUla. 



y Google 



The Silken Chalice-Veil. 207 

silken veil,' covered with which they are carried 
to, and placed upon the altar.' The chalice- 
veil is not removed till the ofiertory.3 

This represents the custom which has of late 
years been faithfully copied in certain English 
churches. It is quite evident where the model 
in this matter has been sought, namely, in the 
ceremonial of the Roman Church of modern 
times, as laid down in the rubrics of the Roman 
Missal. 

It is to be observed that the silken chalice- 
veil is, comparatively speaking, a modern 
ornament in the Roman Church. In the 
Ordo Missa of John Burchardt (circ. 1502), no 
mention is made of the silken chalice-veil. 
The following is his account of the final 
preparations of the celebrant, before leaving the 
sacristy. When he has vested and is about 
to proceed to the altar, '* accipit manu sinistra 
calicem cum patena simul ligata, • • • et 
desuper ponit bursam cum corporali, et palla, 
quae debent esse de puro panno lineo, non de 
panno intincto, aut de serico ; et bursam ipsam, 
ne cadet manu dextera tenens, cooperto capite 

X '*Deinde prseparat calicem, super ejus os ponit purifica- 
torium mundum, et super illud patenam cum hostia integra 
. . . et earn tegit parva palla linea, tum velo serico : super 
velo ponit bursam coloris paramentorum." — Ht^us servandus 
in celebratione Missce, i. i. 

« "Tum ascendit ad medium altaris, ubi ad comu 
Evangelii sistit calicem, extrahit corporate de bursa, quod 
extendit in medio altaris, et super illud calicem velo co- 
opertum coUocat." — Ibid. ii. 2. 

3 " Dicto Offertorio^ discooperit calicem.'' — Ibid. vii. 2. 



y Google 



2o8 The Silken Chalia-Veil. 

accedit ad altare : " ' ^' he takes in his left hand 
the chalice with the paten attached to it, • • . 
and on top of it the burse with the corporal and 
pall, and these last ought to be of pure white 
linen, not of dyed cloth or of silk, and holding 
the burse with his right hand lest it should fall, 
he advances to the altar with his head covered.*' 
On arriving at the altar, ** explicat corporale, 
et calicem de suo sacculo solvit : " > « he unfolds 
the corporas, and takes the chalice out of its 
bag." At the end of Mass, the following 
directions are given by Burchardt : <* Minister 
accipit candelas de altari, et extinguit eas. 
Celebrans plicat corporale, palla interposita, 
reponit earn in bursam corporalis, et calicem 
cum patena in sacculum, sive linteum ad hoc 
ordinatum ligat, ponit desuper bursam cum 
corporali, et omnia in manum sinistram 
recipiens, manu dextera retinet bursam cor- 
poralis ne cadat.**3 "The server takes the 
candles from the altar and extinguishes them. 
The celebrant folds up the corporas, the pall 
being put within, he replaces it in the corporas- 
case, and ties up the chalice with the paten 
in the bag, or towel provided for this purpose, 
he places the burse with the corporas upon the 
top, and taking the whole in the left hand, 
holds the corporas-case with the right hand 
lest it fall." The bag named by Burchardt 

' Ordo Missa, sub ' A4 Casulam.' in Cochleus, p. 198 5, 
Venice, 1572. 

■ Ibid. p. 199. 3 Ibid. p. 220 6. 



y Google 



The Silken Chalice-Veil. 209 

clearly excludes the use of any chalice-veil, 
and indeed no trace of such a thing is to be 
found in the illuminations or engravings of the 
period, which, be it observed, falls within fifty 
years of the year to which we are referred in 
the Ornaments Rubric* 

In the directions at the end of Mass, given 
by Christopher Marcellus, no mention of a 
chalice-veil is made : ** Subdiaconus vero 
accipit calicem, mundat, et aptat cum patena 
et purificatorio, plicat corporalia, ponit in 
bursam, imponit supra calicem, et omnia simul 
portat ad credentiam." « "The subdeacon 
takes the chalice, cleanses it, and covers it 
with the paten and purificatory, folds the 
corporasses, puts them in the burse, places it 
upon the chalice, and carries the whole together 
to the credence." 3 

X As evidence of the late introduction of the chalice-veil 
in the Roman churches, we may refer to the frontispiece of 
the Carthusian Missals of 1679, 17 13, and 177 1. The 
celebrant is depicted standing in the front of the North part 
of the altar, facing South, at the beginning of the Service ; 
the chalice with the paten on the top is clearly visible, and 
it has no chalice-veil. As late as the year 1 77 1 the chalice- 
veil was not therefore in use amongst the Carthusians : 
but the writer is unable to say if it has since been adopted. 

' Riluum EccUsiasticoruntf lib. ii. cap. ii. fol. Izxii. 
Venice, 15 16. 

3 It is very interesting to observe, that C. Marcellus, ift 
the year 15 16, and Paris de Crassus, in the year 1564, both 
refer to the use of the offertorium or sudarium at the 
Offertory; whilst neither of these writers allude to the 
chalice- veil in its modern form. " Interim etiam paratus, 
subdiaconus ante credentiam cuhi velo circa collum, et 
inde accipit calicem cum patena, hostia, et palla ; et co- 
operitur cum velo." — C. Marcellus, Rituum EccUsiaS' 



y Google 



2IO The Silken Chalice-Veil. 

In the Carthusian Ordinary of 1582, we find 
named what appears to be the linteum or towel, 
referred to above by Burchardt. Amongst the 
instructions to the sacristan occurs, <S • • sit 
linteum super piscinam pro suscipiendo calice 
ante principium et post finem missae;" and 
also, ". . . . mapulse quibus involvuntur 
calices.'** "Let there be a towel upon the 
piscina for taking the chalice before the begin- 
ning and after the end of Mass" . . . "the 
napkins in which the chalices are wrapt." 

From the evidence afforded by the Ordo 
Missa of Burchardt, to which we have referred, 
it seems highly probable that the " sacculum, 
give linteum " (•* the bag, or towel "), of which 
he speaks, is the original of the modern Roman 
silken chalice- veil ; in fact that the chalice-veil 
is but an ornamental form of Burchardt's bag. 
We know that the maniple was originally a 
cloth or handkerchief intended merely for use, 
and not for ornament; which afterwards as- 
sumed a purely decorative and symbolic form. 
Is it not possible that a similar process went 
on with regard to the chalice-bag, to which 
Burchardt refers ? In his arrangement of the 

Quorum, lib. ii. cap. ii. fol. Ixxi. Venice, 1516. ''Lecto 
offertorio, illico [subdiaconus] vadit ad abacum, ubi velo 
super humeris ejus extenso, capit dextra manu calicem cum 
patena, bostia, palla, et purificatorio, quse omnia simul 
cxtremitate ipsius veli cooperta, . . ." — Paridis Crassit De 
Caremoniis Card, et Episc, lib. i. cap. vi. fol. 9 a, Venicg, 
1582. 

1 Ordinarium Cartusiense, cap xxiii. §§ 51, 41. Parisiis, 
1582. 



y Google 



The Silken Chalice-Veil. 211 

vessels, it closely corresponds with the modern 
chalice-veil; and it would require no great 
alteration to remove the string used for tying 
it, and to make it of richer material. This 
theory would explain accurately the three 
cloths now used about the chalice in the Roman 
Church: (i) the corporas cloth, to lie on the 
altar, much in its old state, but somewhat 
reduced in size, (2) the corporas cloth to 
cover the chalice, much reduced in size and 
stiffened, called the pall, (3) the silken veil, 
an ornamental development of the bag in 
which the chalice used to be kept. This theory 
of the origin of the silken chalice-veil removes 
the difiBculty which has been felt in accepting 
the idea, that the chalice-veil is an enriched 
form of the covering corporas cloth: for the 
following reasons — (i) the covering corporas 
cloth can be traced in the small stiff pall, which 
it is in reality, (2) in the Roman Church, even 
in Burchardt's Ordo Missa, no less than in 
England, the making of a silken corporas cloth 
was forbidden by the canon law. The theory 
of the evolution of the silken chalice-veil out 
of the chalice-bag, removes all the difficulties 
which have been felt in identifying the chalice- 
veil with the corporas; and, as regards the 
position in England, we can definitely say 
that no such development ever took place. 
The use of the words corporas and corporal for 
' burse * ^ covers all the cases of silk cor- 
* See p. 206, note. 



y Google 



212 The Silken Chalice-VeiL 

porasses named in inventories, which are very 
few indeed, allowing for an occasional real 
corporas cloth of silk as an abuse. The 
slovenliness of medieval Low Mass seems to 
be responsible for this development of the silk 
chalice- veil out of the chalice-bag. Medieval 
people were at the same time greasy-fingered, 
and they were particularly careful to use a 
cloth or towel of some kind in handling the 
church-plate. At High Mass, they used the 
sudary to carry the things in; but at Low 
Mass, on the continent, it would seem from 
Burchardt's words, that the bag, in which the 
chalice and paten were kept in the sacristy, was 
used to carry in the vessels to the altar. In- 
ventories show that chalices were kept in bags 
when out of use ; ' so were silver candlesticks, 
and censers. There is nothing in the Orna- 
ments Rubric to prevent our keeping the 
altar-vessels in wash-leather bags in the 
cupboard or safe of the sacristy ; but by no 
stretch of imagination can that rubric be made 
to sanction carrying the vessels to the altar in 
such bags, or in any foreign form or develop- 
ment of the same. The chalice-bag was not an 
oi;nament of the Church of England in the 



' In certain instructions for the better rule of the 
Cistercian monasteries in Scotland, given in the year 
1531, occurs, <<Omnes calices sacculis lineis honestis et 
mundis involvantur." — Illustrations of the Topography 
and Antiquities of the shires of Aberdeen and Banff, 
Aberdeen, Spalding Club, 1842, vol. iv. pp. x, and 7. 



y Google 



The Silken Chalice-Veil. 213 

second year of Edward VL, at any time of the 
priest's ministration. 



We conclude our observations by repeating, 
that the silken chalice- veil, not being a legalised 
ornament of the English Church in the second 
year of the reign of King Edward VI., and 
not having since that time been authorised in 
England, its use amongst us cannot be justified. 
If it is desired to cover the holy vessels in 
carrying them in to the altar, it should be done 
by using a large and long offertory veil,' at the 
principal celebration of the Eucharist : but 
there is no objection, on the score of irrever- 
ence, to carrying them in uncovered, the burse 
containing the pair of corporasses being laid 
on the top of the paten. 



I See pp. 201, 202, n. K Offertory veils may be had from 
the St. Dunstan Society, 102 Adelaide Road, London, 
N. W. This Society exists for the purpose of making vest- 
ments and ornaments, in accordance with the standard set 
forth by the Ornaments Rubric of the Church of England ; 
and turns out most excellent work. 



y Google 



y Google 



Z\)c (tballce««paUi 



yGoogle 



Thb use of the foreign stiffened chalice-pall not 
permissible in the English Church, p. 217. The 
ancient rule as to the chalice-covering, pp. 217, 218. 
Evasion of the Roman rules abroad, pp. 218, 219. 
Use of the corporas to cover the chalice, p. 219. 
The use of cardboard about the Blessed Sacrament 
not reverent, p. 220. Rules as to the corporasses, 
pp. 221, 222. Dominican directions, pp. 222, 223. 
Conclusion, pp. 224, 225. 



y Google 



X. 

THE CHALICE-PALL. 

TAKING the Ornaments Rubric as our 
guide, as we are bound to do, the 
custom of using a small stiffened pall or 
corporas, for covering the chalice is pro- 
hibited. Such a thing was unknown in this 
Church of England in the second year of the 
reign of King Edward VI. It has not since 
been authorised in the English Church, and 
we may express the hope that it never will be. 
Mr. St. John Hope, the eminent antiquary, 
whose knowledge of church inventories is 
unrivalled, has recently said, ''After reading 
through hundreds and hundreds of English 
parish church inventories, I have no recollec- 
tion of ever coming across such an ornament 
as the pasteboard-stiffened small corporas or 
*pall."*» 

I. 
The ancient rule is that the corporas, where- 
with the chalice is covered, should be of pure 
linen; it must not be starched, nor have 
anything put into it to make it stand stiff or 
rigid over the chalice ; it must be simply linen 

X The Church Times^ Feb. i6, 1900. 



y Google 



2i8 The Chalice-Pall. 

without the admixture of an3rthing else, of 
greater or of less value.' Now the Roman 
rubrics order the priest, in preparing the 
vessels, to place over the mouth of the chalice 
a purificatory, and upon these the paten with 
a wafer laid therein, next, to place over the 
paten and wafer a small linen pall — parva 
palla linea,^ It is to be observed that the Roman 
rubric requires the pall to be of linen, but the 
force of this injunction is very widely evaded 
on the continent, as the following passage from 
Boissonet shows. << La pale est une pibce du 
toile semblable k celle du corporal, destin^e k 
couvrir le calice. En France, on y insure un 
carton pour la rendre plus facile k manier." 3 
** The pall is a piece of linen-cloth, like that of 
the corporas, intended to cover the chalice. 
In France, a piece of cardboard is inserted 
to make it easier to handle." Le Vavasseur 

' Lindewode, ProvinciaU^ lib. iii. tit. 23. qu. p. 201 note 2, 
of the previous essay. 

* *'I)einde prseparat calicemy super ejus os ponit purifica- 
torium mundum, et super illud patenam cum hostia integra 
. . . et earn tergit parva palla Hnea." — Ritus servandtis in 
CiUbroHone Missa^ i. I. Missale Romanum, Venice, 1 7 13. 

3 Dictionnaire des Cirimonies^ Vol. ii. col. 1134. Paris, 
1848. 

** Palla, Corporale minus, quo tegitur calix; le petit 
corporal, carr^ de lin soutenu par un carton dont on couvre 
le calice, la palle.*' — Ducange, Lexicon Alanuale, sub 
« Palla.' col 1594. Paris, 1866. 

'* La pale doit etre de toile aussi bien au-dessus qu'en 
dessous. ... On pent introduire entre les deux toiles un 
mince carton, mais il est mieux de n'emplojer qu'un simple 
carr^ de toile double empes^ et consistante." — Cirimonial 
Romain, par L'Abb^ Falise. p. 344. 



y Google 



The Chalici'Pall. 219 

also says, ''En Italic, la pale consiste dans 
une double toile empes^e, coup^ en carre 
et sans carton. £n France, on met un 
carton entre les deux toiles. Cet usage n'est 
pas r^prouv6, comme on pent le voir dans la 
Cornspondanu de Rome. La pale 6tait d'abord 
une partie m^me du corporal, qui se repliait 
sur le calice, comme le font encore les 
Chartreuse.'* ' ** In Italy, the pall consists of 
a double linen-cloth starched, cut square, and 
without any cardboard. In France, a piece 
of cardboard is inserted between the two pieces 
of linen-cloth. This custom is not disapproved 
of, as may be seen in the Correspondance de Rome. 
The pall was at first a part of the corporas 
itself, which was folded back over the chalice, 
as is still done by the Chartreuse.'** De 
Moleon, who wrote in the eighteenth century, 
describes the use of the corporas in covering 
the chalice instead of the pall, to have been 
retained at Rouen, Orleans, Lyons, and 



I CirimonicU silon le Rit Remain d^aprh Baldeschi, 
part i. § i. ch. iv. Paris, 1871. 

' '* Tunc faciens crucem cum ipso calice . . . ponit eum 
super corporate iD medio, et hostiam coUocat ante calicem, 
quem postea superiore corporalis parte cooperit : imposita 
prius patena ex majori parte subtus corporate ad manum 
dexteram." "... accipit calicem utraque manu, eumque 
parum elevat, primum retractis paululum corporalibus." 
"... ofTertorio dictis, removet superiorem corporalis par- 
tem versus dorsum altaris." — Ordinarium Cariusiense^ cap 
xxvi. § 20; cap. xxvii. §6 ; cap. xxxii. § la Parisiis, 1582. 
For a similar use amongst the Dominicans, the Cistercians, 
and the Benedictines, see later in this essay, pp. 222, 223. 



y Google 



220 The Chalice-Pall. 

other great churches in France.' So that 
even abroad the use of the stiffened or 
cardboard pall, covered with linen, is not 
fully sanctioned. It is well known that card- 
board is very frequently made of old rags. 
Such a material, even if hidden from sight by 
a linen case, is a horrible abomination when 
used to cover the sacred vessels and the 
Consecrated Species.' It is impossible to 
conceive of irreverence pushed to greater 
extreme than to use such a thing for so sacred 
a purpose, quite apart from the fact that it is 
happily unauthorised. Yet, incredible though 
it may seem, this outlandish stiffened pall has 
been introduced wholesale into many of our 
English churches, in pure imitation of a de- 
graded foreign custom! 

Mr. Mickethwaite observes, " The square of 
pasteboard cased in linen, which has been 
introduced from abroad into some of our 
churches lately, and is called a pall, has no 
EngUsh authority, and the use of pasteboard 
or paper in the place of linen about the Blessed 



z Vide Pugin, Glossary of EccUsiastical Omatnent^ p. 86. 
sub. Corporal, 

» The writer has heard of cases where, not merely card- 
board made of rags, but even coarser kinds of board made 
of old newspapers, esparto grass, etc., and in some cases 
squares of zinc, have been used to stiffen the pall 1 The 
bottom is reached, when a piece of blotting paper is fastened 
with pins on to the underside of the pasteboard stififened 
pall. This abomination, the writer has seen in use in 
English churches. 



y Google 



The Chalice-Pall. 221 

Sacrament is contrary to some of the oldest 
canons/* ' 

11. 

There should be but two linen cloths about 
the sacred elements when upon the altar, in 
addition to the linen cloths with which the 
altar is covered. 

(i) The square corporas, which is opened 
out and spread upon the centre of the fair 
linen cloth which covers the altar, and upon 
which the holy vessels are placed and the 
elements are consecrated. This corporas is 
not explicitly named in the rubrics of the 
Prayer Book ; but it was in use in the English 
Church in the second year of King Edward 
VI., and so is authorised by the Ornaments 
Rubric. 

(2) The second corporas, folded to one- 
ninth its full size ; at first, used folded to cover 
the chalice with,' and, later in the Service, 



» TAe Ornaments of the Rubric ^ p. 34. 

' The corporasses (i) and (2) above named, are referred 
to by Durandus thus — Duplex enim est palla quae dicitur 
corporale ; una scilicet quam diaconus super altare extendit, 
altera quam super calicem plicatam imponit." — Rationale 
Div, Off. Lib. iv. cap. 29. The corporas (i), as was 
usual in the middle ages, was sufficiently ample to turn 
up and cover the chalice, thus also serving the purpose of 
corporas (2) named above. This long corporas was in use in 
Forgue, Aberdeenshire, as recently as the year 1900. 

The s3rmbolism of the folded corporas (2) is explained by 
Corsetti thus — "Plicatum vero, ut nee initium, nee finis 
appareat, quia significat linteamina, et sudarium prsesertim 



y Google 



222 The Chalice-Pall. 

opened out and spread over what remains of the 
Sacrament, after the communion of the people. 
This second corporas is that referred to in the 
second rubric which follows the administra- 
tion of the Consecrated Species : " When all 
have communicated, the minister shall return 
to the Lord's Table, and reverently place upon 
it what remaineth of the Consecrated Elements, 
covering the same with a fair linen cloth."* 
The Carthusians, as we have already said, 
still use the old long corporas: the only 
covering for the chalice being provided by 
the hinder part of the corporas bent back 
over it. 

The Dominican directions for the corporas 
and pall are as follows: ** * Corporaliat* supra 
quae semper consecrari et reponi debent SS. 
Corpus et Sanguis Domini, * e tela linea, pura 
et Candida sint, simplicia, nihil elaborata, nulla 
in parte rupta, et nihil serici intextum habeant, 
acus opere simplici, punctim solum retorta sint. 
Eadem non notabiliter parva aut magna erunt, 
sed convenientis mensurae, ita ut latitudo sit, 
quae quatuor plicas in longum, et tres in latum 



capitis Christi, cum sit Deus, qui nee initium habet, nee 
finem." — Praxis Sacrorum Rituutn ac Carenioniarum^ 
p. 427. Venice, 1739. Corsetti here follows Alcuin, De 
Div, Offic, Bibl. Patr. Auct. L 282. 

I The Scottish Liturgy of 1637 directs, that " when all 
have communicated, he that celebrates shall go to the Lord's 
Table, and cover with a fair linen cloth, or corporall, that 
which remaineth of the consecrated Elements.' —Keeling, 
LUurgia Britannica, 2nd ed. pp. 218, 219. Lond. 1851. 



y Google 



The Chalice-Pall. 223 

non excedat.* . . . Parva Palla sit ad cooperi- 
endum calicem, quae (praeter amplitudinem) ex 
eadem materia et eodem modo confecta sit 
ac ipsa corporalia." * "The Corporasscs upon 
which the most holy Body and Blood of the 
Lord should always be consecrated and laid 
(kept), * shall be of linen, pure and white, in 
nowise embroidered, not with frayed edges, 
with no silk interwoven therewith, but hem- 
stitched with plain stitching. They shall not 
be conspicuously small or large, but of a con- 
venient size, so that the breadth does not 
exceed four folds to the length and three to the 
width.' . . . There shall be a small Pall to 
cover the chalice, which (except as regards the 
size) shall be made in the same manner and of 
the same material as the corporasses them- 
selves." Here we have the pasteboard stiffen- 
ing of the pall definitely excluded by a modern 
Western authority# It will be observed, too, 
that the Dominican corporas, like the Cistercian 
and Benedictine, has four folds to the length 
and three to the breadth." 

I CarenioniaU juxta ritum S, Ordinis Pradicatorium^ p. 
141- §§ 5051 506. Mechlin, 1869. 

" ** Unicum quoque fuit olim corporate, nee aderat parva 
ilia palla, qua nunc calicem operimus : cum enim palla 
corporalis latior esset, ea etiam utebantur ad tegendum 
calicem. Liber antiquorum Usuum Cisterciensium, c. 53., 
ait : Diaconus posito offertorio super altare^ ponat calicem 
super corporate in secundo plicaiu anterioris et sinistra 
dextraque partis et panem ante calicem^ revolvens super eum 
corporate, Vetus item Ceremoniale Congregationis Bursfel- 
densis ordinis S. Benedicti, cap. 44., ait, Diaconus explicet 



y Google 



224 The Chalice-Pall. 

Mr. Cuthbert Atchley, in his invaluable 
paper on ** Certain Variations from the Rule 
concerning the Material of the Altar Linen," » 
speaks of the corporasses concisely thus,— - 
" Upon the uppermost linen cloth at masstime 
is laid the larger of the pair of corporasses, the 
other being employed to cover the chalice." 
The two smaller corporasses, as we have seen « 
were kept folded, when not in use, in the 
burse or forel.3 These are the only linen 
cloths authorized for use in the English 
Church during the celebration of the Holy 
Eucharist. No others are either necessary or 
desirable. 

corporate habens tresplicatus in IcUum^ etquaiuorin longum^ 
medium IcUitudinis ponens in medio altaris, Et infira, 
PliccUu extremes partis corporatis caticem operiat, Manet 
hodie hie ritus apud Carthusianos." — Bona, Rerum Litur' 
gicarum, lib. i. cap. xxv. § xi. col. 297. Opera Omnia, 
Antwerp, 1739. 

» St. PauPs Ecclis, Soc. Trans, Vol. iv. p. 156. 

' See p. 205, of this work. 

3 « Forelle^ to keep in a book. Jocelyn de Brakelonda 
relates in his Chronicle,^p. 84, that Abbot Samson examined 
the relics of St. Edmund in 1 198, and when the shrine was 
closed up, ^positus est super loculum forulus quidam sericus, 
in quo depositafuit sceduia Anglice scripta^ continens quasdam 
satutacioncs Ailwini Monachi,* . . . Foruli^ according to 
Papias, are, *iheca velcistce librorum^ iabularum^ velaliarum 
rerum^ut spatce; dicta ^ quod def oris tegant,^ . . . Horman 
says, ' I hadde leuer haue my boke sowed in a forel than 
bounde in bourdis, and couerede, and clasped, and gamys- 
shed with bolyens.' Jennings, in his Observations on the 
Dialects of the West, states, that the cover of a book is still 
termed a forrel." — Promptorium Paroulorum^ p. 171, sub 
* Forelle.* Camden Soc. The word * forel * is applied to the 
burse, because it resembles the cover of a book, opening 
in the same manner. 



y Google 



The Chalice-Pall. 225 

It only remains to be said, that the small 
stiffened pall or corporas is disallowed in the 
English Church, which prescribes a fair white 
linen cloth in its place. This is prescribed not 
only by the Ornaments Rubric, but also by the 
rubric of the Communion Service, which ex- 
plicitly enforces the canon law of the West on 
this subject. 



y Google 



y Google 



^be »(retta. 



yGoogle 



Appeal to modern foreign usages excluded by 
the Ornaments Rubric, pp. 229—231; disregard 
of the terms of the Rubric, and the mischief 
ensuing, pp. 231, 232. The Italian biretta not worn 
in England in the second year of Edward VI., pp. 
232, 233. Reference to St. Paul's words in i Cor. 
xi., p. 233. Mr. C. Browne's opinion, p. 234. Le 
Brun's opinion, p. 235. The amice as a head- 
covering, pp. 236, 237; its symbolic signification^ 
p. 237. Dr. Rock on the amice, p. 238 ; De Moleon 
on the same, p. 239 ; and other testimony, pp. 239, 
240. The Lincoln use of a cap, pp. 240, 241. The 
reason for a head-covering in church no longer 
valid, p. 241. The wearing of the Italian biretta 
unlawful in the English Church, p. 242; further 
testimony to this verdict, pp. 242 — 244. Note on the 
Dominican custom, p. 244. 



y Google 



XL 
THE BIRETTA. 

WE may safely say, that there is no rubric 
in the Book of Common Prayer which 
is more comprehensive, or of greater impor- 
tance, than that which is commonly known 
as the Ornaments Rubric. And we may say, 
too, that there is no rubric concerning the 
interpretation of which, during the last fifty 
years, there has been more discussion. The 
vexed question, broadly speaking, has regard 
to what is signified by the closing words of the 
rubric, " the authority of Parliament, in the 
second year of the reign of King Edward VI." 
It is not our intention, in this essay, to enter 
into this question, but to point out that, what- 
ever ambiguity there may be as to the meaning 
of the words just quoted, there is one thing 
at least about the Ornaments Rubric which 
admits of no dispute — namely, that the rubric 
is so worded as to exclude implicitly any 
appeal to the usages of any foreign Church 
whatever, in regard to the ornaments either 
of the church or of the ministers. The 
ornaments of both church and ministers, 
authorised and prescribed by the rubric, 



y Google 



230 The Biretta* 

such as were legalised '*in this Church of 
England" in a certain year. Whatever 
ornaments were in use in the churches of 
the continent in that particular year, is, of 
course, a matter of interest from an antiquarian 
point of view, but nothing more; unless, in 
fact, it can be demonstrated that the English 
and the foreign ornaments were identical in 
the year to which we are referred. To set to 
work to prove any such identity is a waste of 
time, in interpreting the force of the Orna- 
ments Rubric; for the reason that, when we 
have once satisfied ourselves as to what 
ornaments were used or worn in the English 
churches in the year in question, we have 
reached the goal : there is no need for further 
enquiry. As to whether the foreign ornaments 
of 1548-9 were similar to the English in that 
year, or not, does not seriously afiect the 
question : it is, strictly speaking, quite outside 
any enquiry suggested by the Ornaments 
Rubric. Where any doubt exists, we may, 
with advantage, refer to the foreign customs 
in order to clear up difficulties; but beyond 
this, we cannot go.' In short, we repeat that 



z In speaking upon this point, Mr. Micklethwaite ob- 
serves, ** We are referred to the usages of our own Church, 
and it is to documents concerning that Church that we must 
turn for information. It does not» however, follow that all 
study of foreign customs is useless. On the contrary, we 
should sometimes find it difficult to understand what is 
recorded of our own without it. But the help comes oftener 
from those local usages which the Roman policy has for 



y Google 



The Biretta. 231 

we are referred for our model and standard, 
as concerning the fittings and utensils of our 
churches and the vestures of the clergy, to 
the legalised usages which prevailed '' in this 
Church of England in the second year of the 
reign of Edward VI.," and in no other Church, 
either in that year or in any other year. 

And yet, obvious as this is to any one who 
takes words in their grammatical sense, we 
are obliged sorrowfully to confess, that the 
directions of the Ornaments Rubric in this 
particular have been considerably disregarded. 
Ornaments have been freely introduced into 
certain English churches of which it is quite 
impossible to say, 'This thing was in use in 
the English Church in the second year of 
Edward the Sixth.' In fact, the persons who 
have introduced the foreign ornaments in 
question never seemed to have asked, < Is this 
thing one of the ornaments which were used 
in England in the year 1548-1549? ' Had they 
done so, we should have been saved from 
much of the confusion in matters of cere- 
monial from which we are suffering, and 
which is so perplexing to the laity- We 
appeal confidently to the Ornaments Rubric 
in defending the adoption of the Eucharistic 
Vestments, or the two Altar Lights. We 
cannot appeal to this same rubric in defence of 

centuries been trying to destroy, than from the common 
form which it tries to enforce. — rke Omamenis of the 
Rubric^ p. 15. Alcuin Club Tracts, i. 



y Google 



232 The Biretta. 

certain other things, for the simple reason that 
they were not *' in this Church of England . . . 
in the second year of the reign of King Edward 
VI." And the special mischief of the pro- 
ceeding which we are condemning is, that the 
unauthorised foreign ornaments and usages 
have come to be regarded by a large number 
of people as Catholic, whilst in reality, from a 
scientific and historical point of view, they are 
not. For us, also, in the English Church they 
lack ecclesiastical authority. We have to be 
very thankful that these foreign ornaments, and 
varities of ornaments, are nearly all degraded 
forms, and often in the worst of taste. They 
were not ** in this Church of England by the 
authority of Parliament! in the second year 
of the reign of King Edward VI.," and they 
have not since been sanctioned. The ground 
of objection is not, of course, that an orna- 
ment is foreign; but simply and solely that 
it is not authorised. 

Of certain unauthorised ornaments we have 
already spoken in previous articles of this 
work. Of another, we are now about to speak, 
namely, the Italian biretta. Happily, no one 
has ever yet had the rashness to assert that 
the Italian biretta was worn by the clergy 
^'in this Church of England" in the year 
named in the Ornaments Rubric. And yet, 
incredible as it appears to reasonable men, 
this thing has been adopted by not a few 
of the English clergy, in blind, unreasoning 



y Google 



The Biretta. 233 

imitation of the custom of the Roman Church.* 
The use of the Italian biretta by an English 
clergyman is about as great an act of private 
judgment or sentiment, as opposed to ecclesi- 
astical authority, in a matter of ceremonial, 
as it is possible to conceive. 

I. 

The subject of the head-coverings of the 
clergy is one beset with no ordinary difficulty. 
It is a subject so vast and complicated, that a 
full discussion of it would occupy a treatise to 
itself. But the enquiry is narrowed consider- 
ably, when we confine our attention to the 
special subject of this article, namely, the 
Italian biretta. Whilst there is evidence that 
the old square cap was in constant use in 
England in 1548-9, there is no evidence that 
has yet been produced that the English clergy 
wore the modern Italian biretta either in 
church or out of church during the reign of 
Edward VI. And, until such evidence is 
produced, the thing is disallowed by the terms 
of the Ornaments Rubric, and the Canons of 
the English Church. 

St. Paul, in i. Cor. xi., lays down, that " a 
man indeed ought not to cover his head, foras- 

I "Sacerdos omnibus paramentis indutus . . . capite 
cooperto accedit ad altare. . . . Cum pervenerit ad altare 
. . . caput detegit, biretum ministro porrigit." At the end 
of mass, "Sacerdos accipit biretum a ministro, caput 
cooperit, ac . . . redit ad sacristiam." — MissaU Romanum^ 
Ritus celebrandi Missam, ii. i, 2 ; xii. 6. 



y Google 



234 ^^* Biretta. 

much as he is the image and glory of God ; ** 
and that " every man praying or prophesying, 
having his head covered, dishonoureth his 
head." He declares that "the head*' which is 
thus dishonoured is Christ, — "the head of every 
man is Christ.'* ' It is doubtless in accordance 
with this explicit direction, that all Catholic 
Christian communities have insisted upon the 
head being uncovered during the time of divine 
service.* Mr. Charles Browne, in his able 
article on Ecclesiastical Head-dress,3 says, 
"Those who have closely investigated the 
subject declare, that there is no clear or con* 
elusive evidence of there having been any 
distinctive head-dress appropriated to the 
superior orders of the clergy during, at least, 
the first thousand years of the Christian era.'* 
In allusion to the bishop's mitre, which we 
believe to be a lawful ornament in the English 
Church, the same writer says,4 "against the 
antiquity of the mitre there is the very strong 
negative evidence that (as it is said), there is 
not a single Pontifical or ceremonial work of 
any sort earlier than the eleventh century, that 
contains any direction to invest the bishop at 



I I Cor. xi. 3, 4, 7. 

' The only exception to this rule is that of the Armenians, 
according to whose ceremonial, the celebrant covers his head, 
during the canon of the mass, with two veils of white silk 
or linen, over which, in later times, a bishop wears a cap 
ornamented with gold and jewels. — See Browne, Ecclesiasti- 
cal Head-dress^ St. Pauls' Eccles. Soc. Trans. Vol. iii. p. 156. 

3 Ibid. p. 157. * Ibid. p. 158. 



y Google 



The Biretta. 235 

his consecration with any special head-dress, 
or any indication that he was to wear any such 
ornament at any ceremony or function. And, 
indeed, in a special account of the ceremonial 
used at High Mass on Easter Day, in the year 
986, although all the episcopal ornaments worn 
are set out and described in much detail, there 
is nothing said about a mitre." Pierre Le 
Brun, in commenting on the directions of the 
Roman Missal,' says, '< Lc prHre tnarche la tiU 
couverte. II y a sept ou huit cens ans qu*on 
^toit toujours d6couvert en allant ^ Tautel. 
Cet usage s'est conserve en plusieurs Eglises, 
k Treves, si Toul, Metz, Verdun, Sens, Laon, 
Tournai; le cd6brant et les ministres vont a 
Tautel la t6te nue.*'« ** Seven or eight 
hundred years ago (Le Brun wrote in the 
first half of the eighteenth century), it was 
the rule to proceed to the altar un- 
covered. This custom is preserved in several 
Churches, at Treves, at Toulouse, Metz, 
Verdun, Sens, Laon, Tournai; the celebrant 
and the ministers proceed to the altar bare- 
headed." The biretta, or old cap, is first 
mentioned in the middle of the thirteenth 
century.3 



* See footnote p. 233. 

' Explication de la Messe^ Vol. i. Art. viii. p. 95. Liege, 
1777. 

3 *<Birreta tamen primum seculo dedmo-tertio com- 
memorantur."— Kozma de Papi, Liturgica Sacra Catholica^ 
p. 52. Ratisbon 1863. 



y Google 



236 The Biretta. 

II. 
The Ornaments Rubric authorises the use 
of an amice as one of the Eucharistic vest- 
ments. The amice was originally the priest's 
head-covering at Mass, and there is a consider- 
able amount of good evidence that it was so used 
in the middle ages. John Beleth, writing at 
the close of the twelfth century, has, " Amictu 
pro galea caput contegit." » " (The priest) 
covers his head with the amice for a helmet.*' 
Pierre le Brun,» speaking of the use of the 
amice, says, ** A Rome et dans la plupart des 
Eglises, vers Tan 900, on le regarda (I'amict) 
comme un casque qu'on mit sur la t^te pour Ty 
laisser jusqu*k ce qu'on fiit enti^rment habill^; 
et Tabattre autour du cou avant que de com- 
mencer la Messe. Get usage s'observe encore 
k Narbonne, k Auxerre depuis la Toussaint 
jusqu'k k Piques, et chez les Dominicains et 
les Capuchins." " At Rome and in the greater 
number of Churches, about the year 900, the 
amice was regarded as a helmet, which was 
put on the head and left there until the priest 
was completely vested; and was allowed to 
fall round the neck before commencing the 
Mass. This usage is observed still at Nar- 
bonne, at Auxerre from All Saints until Easter, 
and also by the Dominicans3 and Capuchins." 

' Rationale Div, Off. cap. xxxii. 
' Explication de la Messe, Vol. i. Art. iv. p. 43. 
3 For the present-day Dominican custom, see Note at the 
conclusion of this essay. 



y Google 



The Biretta. 237 

The prayer appointed in the Roman Missal, 
when the priest puts on the amice, points to 
the original use of that vesture as a head- 
covering, "Impone, Domine, capiti meo 
galeam salutis. . . •"' **Put, O Lord, the 
helmet of salvation on my head. ..." 
Durandus, writing at the close of the 
thirteenth century, also describes the amice 
as a head-covering : " Sacerdos assumit amic- 
tum quo caput tegitur," giving the symbolic 
meaning, ''de hoc apostolus ad £ph. vi., 
Galeam salutis assumite.*' « ** The priest puts on 
the amice with which his head is covered; 
concerning which, the apostle in Ephes. vi., 
says, Put ye on the helmet of salvation,^* 

In the year 1543, in the reign of Henry 
VIII., the rites and ceremonies of the Church 
were brought under review, and a Rationale 
was issued to explain their meaning.3 In 
regard to the amice, we read, ** First, he 
putteth on the amice, which, as touching the 
mystery, signifies the veil, with which the 
Jews covered the face of Christ, when they 
buffeted Him in the time of His passion : 
and, as touching the minister, it signifies faith, 
which is the head, ground, and foundation 
of all virtues ; and therefore he puts that upon 



I This prayer is given in Burchardt*s Ordo Missa of 1502. 
See Cochleus, Speculum MisscB^ p. 198. 

' Rationale^ lib. iii. cap. 2. de Amictu. 

3 See Collier, Eccles, Hist* Vol. ii. part ii. book iii. fol. 
191. Lond. 1 7 14. 



y Google 



238 The Biretta. 

his head first/' » It will be observed that 
within a very few years of the second year 
of Edward VI., the amice is described in 
the Rationale of 15431 as a covering for the 
head. It would, almost certainly, thus be 
regarded in i 548-1 549. 

Upon this subject, Dr. Rock says, <* Early in 
the thirteenth century, we know it was a rite, 
already well established abroad, to keep the 
amice hanging over the head while the vest- 
ments were being put on ; ' and so widely did 
this usage spread itself, that, from such a 
practice, mystical writers and the Church 
herself began to look upon the amice as 
symbolising the helmet of salvation, a meaning 
which is yet given to it in the prayer that we 
still say at putting it on, the while we let it 
rest for an instant on the head. . . . Accord- 
ing to the customs of the old religious orders, 
the amice, to this day, is always worn over the 
head in going to, and coming from the altar, at 
the beginning and the end of service.'* 3 As 
we have just said, the Dominicans and the 
Capuchins still keep up this custom of using 

I Collier, EccUs, Hist, Vol. ii. part ii book iii. fol. 194. 

The first of the above meanings is that given by 
Durandus, Rationale, lib. iii. cap. 2. '*Amictus etiam 
representat operimentum, quo Tudei velabant faciem Christi, 
dicentes Matthei. xxvi., Propketiza nobis Christe, quis est 
qui te percussit,"*^ 

' Quidam amictu caput suum obnubit, donee super os 
casulse ilium revolvat et velut caput aut coronam illi 
coaptet."— Rupertus Tuitiensis, De Div, Offic, cap. xix. 

3 The Church of our Fathers, Vol. i. pp. 477, 478. 



y Google 



The Biretta. 239 

the amice, and not the biretta, as a head- 
covering in church. ' De Moleon, in describ- 
ing the usages of the cathedral of Angers 
in the year 17571 says, *' Le cd6brant et ces 
deux-ci se servent d'amicts et d'aubes par6es, 
et ont en tout terns Tamict sur la t^te, qu*ils 
n'abaissent que depuis le Sanctus jusqu'k 
la Communion."* "The celebrant and these 
two (the deacon and sub-deacon) use amices 
and albs with apparels, and have always the 
amice on the head, which they only lower from 
the Sanctus to the Communion." 

In Dives and Pauper, an interesting work on 
the Ten Commandments, which was written at 
the close of the fourteenth century, Dives asks, 
'* What betokeneth the clothinge of the prieste 
at masse?" to which Pauper replies: "The 
amyt on his heed at the begynnynge, be- 
tokeneth that clothe that Christis face was 
hyled with in tyme of his passion, when the 
Jewes hyled his face and bobbed hym and made 
hym arede who that smote hym." 3 Watson, 
bishop of Lincoln, in the sixteenth century, 
says, " For as the Jewes did first cover Christes 
face, and did mocke him and bufifet him, so 
hathe the priest in memory of that, an amisse 



I "Amictus capiti operto caputio imponitur." — Care- 
moniale juxta Riium Sac, Ordin, Prcedic, § 538, p. 150. 
Mechlin, 1869. 

' Voyages LiturgiqueSy p. 87. 

3 qu. Rock, T%e Church of our Fathers^ Vol. i. p. 
480, n. 



y Google 



240 The Biretta. 

put upon his head."' Hence it is that, in some 
of our late documents, the amice is called the 
head-cloth, e.g., <<for washing eleven aubes 
and as many head-clothes."^ In Lydgate's 
Vcftue of the Masse^ we find, 

*' Upon his hede, an Amyte, the prist hathe." 3 

Thomas Becon, writing in Queen Mary's 
reign, says, ** Ye first put on upon your head 
an head-piece, called an amice, to keep your 
brains in temper, as I think." « In the Workes 
of Sir Thomas More, Knyght,s we read, " He 
would have the peple pull the priest from the 
aulter and y* amis from his head." 

III. 
From the foregoing, we have good evidence 
that the amice, and not the biretta, was the 
customary head-covering at Mass in Old 
England, though at Lincoln, however, the 
priest wore a cap on approaching the altar.^ 



X Holsome and Catholyke Dociryne, fol. Ixxi. A.D. 1558. 
qu. Rock, Vol. i. p. 481, n. 

« Fuller, History of WaUham Abbey, p. 273. Lond. 
1840. qu. Rock, Ibid. 

3 See Tht Lay Folks Mass Book, p. 167. 

* The Displaying of the Popish Mass, Works, iii. p. 2591 
Parker Soc. 

5 London, 1557, p. 641. col. ii. F. 

^ The celebrant himself now passed his cap (it is not 
called a biretta, hwi pillius, ox pileus) to the charge of a boy 
who expected i^. for taking care of it till the service was 
done." — Wordsworth, NoUs on Medieval Services, p. 29. 
** Et dum canitur Gloria in excelsis et cetera deponat C[ui 
preest officio pillium et tradatur cuidam puero ministranti in 



y Google 



The Biretta. 241 

It is just possible that further research into the 
subject of the choir dress may show that the 
cap used at Lincoln, on approaching the altar, 
was a medieval English form of the biretta. 
The cap, or a cap, used in church by the 
medieval clergy was certainly called a biretta. 
But the evidence at present forthcoming points 
out, that this Lincoln use of the cap held the 
same position as regards English practice, as 
the Lincoln crossing at the end of the Nicene 
Creed, to which we have previously referred : 
that is to say, it was a marked exception to the 
general rule. 

There is another point about the use of the 
cap or biretta, which should not be forgotten ; 
Unlike the mitre, it was used simply as a 
protection from the cold in un warmed churches. 
The reason for its use — and indeed for the use 
of the amice as a head-covering in church — is 
quite gone. These head-coverings have long 
been disused in England, as the need of their 
use ceased. Our churches in winter are now 
warmed. Not so in the Roman Church, how- 
ever. Like the chalice-bag, which seems to 
have been turned into the chalice- veil, the cap, 
once worn to protect the head from cold, has 
developed into a thing of different shape, and 

altari : et pro custodia illius pillij recipiet vinum scilicet 
j. d. 6 : hoc est j. denarium et obolum, ad potandum." — 
Lincoln Cathedral StcUutes^ Bradshaw and Wordsworth, 
part i, The Black Book, p. 377. The carrying of the 
* mortar-board ' by the clergy in English cathedrals appears 
to be a survival of this Lincoln custom. 

R 



y Google 



242 The Biretta. 

its use has been regulated as a mere piece of 
ceremonial. The use of the Italian biretta, as 
certain English clergy have introduced it, is 
not only the use of an illegal kind of ornament, 
but it is an illegal use also— the introduction 
of a ceremony of modern Roman growth. 
Canon 18 of 1604 directs, that **no man shall 
cover his head in the church or chapel in the 
time of divine service, except he have some 
infirmity; in which case let him wear a night- 
cap or coit"» The wearing of the Italian 
biretta in church is thus implicitly forbidden 
by the English Church. 

"It would seem,** says Dr. Eager,' "as if 
many among our clergy thought that there was 
something ancient, venerable, and perhaps 
even mystical, if not lovely, connected with 
that most hideous and mishapen head-covering 
which they have taken of late to wear, the 
Italian biretta! It seems probable that that 
extraordinarily shaped and stiflfened head-dress 
can hardly claim even so great an antiquity as 
two hundred and fifty years. This particular 
shape I believe has been entirely confined to 
the use of a large part of the clergy of the 
papal obedience, with the exception of Spain 



X Cardwell, Synodalia, i. 255, In the Latin version, 
pileolo out rica, — Ibid. 172. The night-cap, or coif, 
appears to have been a flat broad cap. 

' Notes on Customs in Spanish Churches^ illustrative of 
Old English Ceremonial^ St. PauPs Eccles. Soc. Trans. 
Vol. iv. p. 116. 



y Google 



The Biretta, ^243 

(even the Portugese form, being haidly so 
ugly), until with great want of judgment it was 
introduced into this country by some priests 
of the Catholic school, who no doubt had seen 
it used in their travels, or worn by some of the 
Italian Mission in England. It was done no 
doubt with the best of intention, believing this 
to be the ancient form of head-covering for a 
priest ; and so they forthwith took to wearing 
it, discarding the more venerable and national 
* mortar-board.' I have examined all the 
pictures, engravings or monuments to which I 
have had access, in which this cap has been 
shewn, and Raphael, Holbein and many others 
have often drawn priests with this cap ; but in 
no picture or sculpture which I have examined 
of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century 
have I seen a priest's cap depicted in this 
stiffened Italian shape." In speaking of the 
biretta as two-hundred and fifty years old, Dr. 
Eager means what the word ** biretta " signifies 
to us now; namely, the modern Italian de- 
velopment of this head-covering, stiflfened, with 
its three peaks. 

Mr. Micklethwaite says, "The priest's cap 
has its modern representative in the square 
college cap, which is directly derived from it 
by a gradual process of stiffening. The hiretta 
is a foreign degradation of the same sort, and 
I can not understand why, when we have our 
own tradition, we should go out of our way to 
adopt a foreign one. If the modern English 



y Google 



244 ^^^ Biretta. 

form is thought not suitable for use in church, 
the change should be to that in use at the date 
to which the Ornaments Rubric refers us. 
The cap was used in processions and in quire, 
but not at the altar." « 



z The Ornaments of the Rubric, p. 59. Alcuin Club 
Tracts i. 



NoTB. The Dominican custom as regards the amice as 
a head-covering is as follows : 

§ ii. Quomodo Sacerdos se praparare debeat ad Missam, 
'*Deinde accipiens Amictum circa extremitates, et 
cordulas, crucem in medio signando, eum osculetur (ubi 
facta est crux), et, capite imponens, dicat : Impone,, Domine, 
capite meo galeam salutis, ad expugnandos ovines diabolicos 
iftcursus. Amen, lUo caputium circumtegat. ..." 

'*Ad Missale, super cussino ad cornu Epistolse se 
conferat, aperiat et reperiat Missam ; quo facto, revertatur 
junctis ante pectus manibus, ad medium altaris, et ibi 
ambabus manibus caput discooperiat. ..." 

§ viL A communione usque adfinem Missa. 

" Cum ad finem Evan^elii perventum est. . . . Deinde 
caput cruci devotius inchnet, et cooperto ambabus manibus 
capite caputio et amictu. ..." 

§ ii. Ab initio Missa usque ad Evangelium (In Missa 
majori). 

In incaptione Missa . . . sacerdos procedat ad altare, 
cooperto capite caputio et amictu. . . . " — Caremoniale 
juxta ritum S. Ordinis Prctdicatorum, §§ 1206, 12 18, 1 272, 
1277. Mechlin, 1869. 

From the above directions it will be seen that the 
Dominicans cover the head with the amice and hood, on 
going to and on returning from the altar. 



y Google 



The Biretta. 245 

"Omnes in in^essu chori, et egressu, versa facie ad 
Altare, nudo capite i^tate ; Hyeme vero, in Ecclesia 
Metropolitana et in Ecclesiis Collegiads, demissa Cappa 
lanea, profunde ante Altare se inclinabunt. Si Sanctissimum 
Sacramentum publicae fidelium yenerationi sit expositum, 
omnes genuflectent nudo omnino capite, etiam Hyeme." — 
CtremonieUe Parisiensey Pt. i. c. ii. § 3. 1703. 



y Google 



OXFORD : 
PRINTED BY A. R. MOWBRAY AND CO. 



y Google 



BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 

toe Ceremonial or tDe €iidll$l) CDurcD. 

Second Edition. 375 pages. Price: cloth, a/- net. 
Cheaper edition, cloth, 1/6 net ; paper, 1/- net. 

CONTENTS. 
Part I. The Moral Principles of Religious 
Ceremonial. 
Introduction : The Object of Ceremonial : The Relation 
of Ceremonial to Doctrine : The Relation of Ceremonial to 
Devotion and Conduct. 
Part II. The Regulation of English Ceremonial. 

The Principles of English Ceremonial : Modification of 
the Ancient Usages : The Ornaments Rubric : The Canons 
of the English Church. 

Part III. Ornaments and Ceremonies of The 
English Church. 
Ornaments of the Church : Ornaments of the Minister : 
Ceremonies of the Church. 



OPINIONS OF THE PRES5. 

" Fair and impartial . . . while a high standard is ad- 
vocated, the general tone is sober. The book may be 
commended to all worshippers, both clerical and lay, as a 
very useful one, indicating as it does the authorities and 
arguments for the various ornaments and ceremonies which 
are adopted by so many true Churchmen. Those who are 
attached to simpler forms may gain much information, which 
should give them a truer view of some things to which they 
are opposed." — The Guardian, 

** We require in writers on ceremonial the observance of 
caution. Mr. Vernon Staley conforms to that require- 
ment. He afHrms positively nothing which has not been 
firmly established by research ; will have nothing to do 
with fancy ceremonies ; holds fast to the English way of 
doing things ; is thoroughly loyal to the Prayer Book. It 
is a merit of the book that it could be read with advantage 
by lay folk, not specially interested in the minuiia of cere- 
monial. What we like about Mr. Staley*s Book is its 
adherence to the old ways of the Ecclesia Anglicatui,** — The 
Church Times, 

** The volume is interesting and valuable." — Church Bells, 

'* We do most heartily recommend it to all who desire to 
see the true arguments for ceremonial observances, and their 
comparative antiquity stated in a clear and impartial man- 
ner." — The Churchwoman. 

A, R. MOWBRAY & CO., OXFORD & LONDON. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



y Google 



y Google 



a«IO«l71112t«I 




B8909719926«A 



yGoogle 



y Google